There goes the god theory.

[mark francis]

So in other words you believe that neutrinos did not exist before some human that you can't name invented them.

Must be fun being retarded

After secularists invented the neutrino it took them 70 years to finally solve the problems with their new invention.

 

[mark francis]

So in other words you believe that neutrinos did not exist before some human that you can't name invented them.

Must be fun being retarded

Good point as lug#1 seems to be missing

Solar neutrino problem - Wikipedia

Solar neutrino problem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The solar neutrino problem concerned a large discrepancy between the flux of solar neutrinos as predicted from the Sun's luminosity and as measured directly. The discrepancy was first observed in the mid-1960s and was resolved around 2002.

 

[Tripoli]

After secularists invented the neutrino it took them 70 years to finally solve the problems with their new invention.

Neutrinos were discovered in 1956, they were not created, now take your Abilify

1956 – First discovery of the neutrino by an experiment​

In this experiment, for which they were awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1995, Clyde L. Cowan and Frederick Reines used a nuclear reactor, expecting to produce neutrino fluxes on the order of 1012 to 1013 neutrinos per second per cm2, far higher than any attainable flux from other radioactive sources. The neutrinos would then interact with protons in a tank of water, creating neutrons and positrons. Each positron would create a pair of gamma rays when it annihilated with an electron. The gamma rays were detected by placing a scintillator material in a tank of water. The scintillator material gives off flashes of light in response to the gamma rays and the light flashes are detected by photomultiplier tubes.

SOLAR NEUTRINO PROJECT
However, this experiment wasn’t conclusive enough, so they came up with a second layer of certainty. They would detect the neutrons by placing cadmium chloride into the tank. Cadmium is a highly effective neutron absorber (and so finds use in nuclear control rods) and gives off a gamma ray when it absorbs a neutron. The arrangement was such that the gamma ray from the cadmium would be detected 5 microseconds after the gamma ray from the positron, if it were truly produced by a neutrino.
They performed the experiment preliminarily at Hanford, but later moved the experiment to the Savannah River Plant near Augusta, Georgia where they had better shielding against cosmic rays. This shielded location was 11m from the reactor and 12m underground. They used two tanks with a total of about 200 liters of water with about 40 kg of dissolved CdCl2. The water tanks were sandwiched between three scintillator layers which contained 110 five-inch (127 mm) photomultiplier tubes.
After months of data collection, they had accumulated data on about three neutrinos per hour in their detector. To be absolutely sure that they were seeing neutrino events from the detection scheme described above, they shut down the reactor to show that there was a difference in the number of detected events. They had predicted a cross-section for the reaction to be about 6×10-44 cm2 and their measured cross-section was 6.3×10-44 cm2. Their results were published in 1956.
Posted in Neutrino History

 

[Tripoli]

Solar neutrino problem - Wikipedia

Solar neutrino problem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The solar neutrino problem concerned a large discrepancy between the flux of solar neutrinos as predicted from the Sun's luminosity and as measured directly. The discrepancy was first observed in the mid-1960s and was resolved around 2002.

So you now admit that you were wrong because the sun is five billion years older than the first human on Earth

 

[mark francis]

Neutrinos were discovered in 1956, they were not created, now take your Abilify

Solar Neutrinos are a very complex subject matter that defies anything like simple conclusions and assessments. Since attempting to deal with all the complex arguments, assessments, conclusions, data, evidence and so forth would be almost impossible in this setting, let me offer some reasons we should not rush to judgment. Here are snippets that reinforce what I am trying to say:

The Solar FAQ: Solar Neutrinos and Other Solar Oddities

But when detailed calculations of the expected neutrino flux were confronted with measurements, about 30 years ago, a significant discrepancy was found. Only about half of the expected neutrinos could be found. This anomaly persisted until quite recently, and is known as the "solar neutrino problem". For all the nitty-gritty details of the solar neutrino problem as it appeared before being solved, see John Bahcall's authoritative book Neutrino Astrophysics (Bahcall 1989), complemented by his more recent updates (Bahcall 1997a; Bahcall & Krastev & Smirnov 1998), and with a more accessible introduction in Bahcall (1990).

It is argued, in brief, that since the neutrino flux is wrong, there can't be enough fusion in the sun, in which case the sun can't keep shining for billions of years, so it must be recently created.

Speculations about the nature of the sun are as old as recorded history, but I shall not dwell on the more fanciful versions of old, as they are not pertinent to the solar neutrino issue.

The issue of where the sun's energy came from turned out to be a thorny one.

One of the leading theories of the formation of the sun was (and is) the 18th-century nebular theory of Kant and Laplace, in which the sun formed through the gravitational contraction of a large gas cloud. The potential gravitational energy of the cloud would be released as heat, as it contracted, and Hermann Helmholtz realized that this was a possible energy source for the sun, provided that it was still in the contracting phase. William Thomson (better known as Lord Kelvin) elaborated and promulgated this theory during the last decades of the 19th century. It was clear, however, that this energy source, while ample by human standards, couldn't last forever. Various calculations gave limits on the order of a few tens of millions of years of steady sunshine: "...it would, I think, be exceedingly rash to assume as probable anything more than twenty million years of the sun's light in the past history of the earth, or to reckon on more than five or six million years of sunlight for time to come" (Thomson 1889, p 369).

Alternatively, one might assume that star birth is an ongoing process, so that the sky is filled with stars of all different ages.

In the quest for a new energy source that took place in the early 20th century, radioactivity (discovered serendipitously by Henri Becquerel in 1896) played a prominent role

What are neutrinos?

Interestingly enough, the neutrino was first invented as an ad hoc hypothesis, in order to save the laws of conservation of energy and momentum from falsification. Around 1930, in the first detailed studies of radioactive beta-decays, it was found that some energy and momentum went missing in each decay. Beta decay involves the conversion of a neutron into a proton, accompanied by the emission of an electron, and nothing else visible. The energy carried away by the electron ought to match the energy released by the atom in the process – but it didn't! Wolfgang Pauli proposed to explain this discrepancy by postulating that an additional, invisible particle was emitted along with the electron, carrying away the missing energy and momentum. This "ghost particle" was named neutrino. (For some of Pauli's original musings about the neutrino, see Mössbauer (1998).)

Now, ad hoc hypotheses, invented purely to save our favorite theories, are generally frowned upon in science, and for good reason. But the neutrino hypothesis was ultimately vindicated, when the ghost particle was finally demonstrated to have a real existence, more than twenty years later. Today, the neutrino is well established as partner to the electron in our standard theory of elementary particles. It has the same basic properties as the electron, and participates in the same interactions, except that it lacks an electric charge, and has a nearly zero mass.

Solar neutrino experiments

The problem with solar neutrino experiments is that neutrinos are notoriously difficult to detect and measure. (After all, they were invented for the purpose of sneaking away unnoticed... ) The only way to detect them is through their occasional interactions with matter as they pass through. But the probability of such an interaction is extremely low; the vast majority of the neutrinos will pass straight through the earth without interacting at all.

Neutrino astronomers have invented a special unit, the SNU (solar neutrino unit), equal to one interaction per second per 1036 atoms (or equivalently, about one interaction per ton per year), that is convenient for solar neutrino studies. Expected interaction rates in realistic neutrino experiments amount to a few SNUs, up to 130 SNUs at best.

The flux of neutrinos observed in Super-Kamiokande is less than 40% of that predicted from standard solar models (Fukuda et al 1998c).

These four solar neutrino experiments (one chlorine, two gallium, and Super-K) were until recently the only ones. All show a significant deficit of neutrinos, measuring on the order of one third to one half the expected flux. Their measurements thus implied that either the standard solar model was wrong, or the standard model of particle physics (and thus neutrino behavior) was wrong.

Two important new solar neutrino experiments have reported results during the past two years. GNO (Altmann et al., 2000) is a new, larger gallium experiment, intended to add weight to the existing data.

On one hand, the number of electron neutrinos remains too low, same as the other experiments see

An even stronger argument against a solar solution, is the analysis of Hata & Langacker (1997). They show that even if one totally disregards the solar model, and allows the relative fluxes of neutrinos from different sources to vary freely, the neutrino discrepancies are not eliminated.

Neutrino oscillations

To have neutrinos disappear into thin air would be highly problematical, violating among other things the conservation of energy and momentum (the preservation of which was the main motive for inventing the neutrino in the first place). Converting the neutrinos into something else is a much more palatable solution. Luckily, there is ample precedent for such conversions among other elementary particles, and speculation about the possibility of similar behavior among neutrinos long predates the solar neutrino problem (Pontecorvo 1957). This conversion process is known as neutrino oscillations.

In particle physics, the equivalent of the suits are the three families, discussed above in the section 'What are neutrinos?'. A neutrino may belong to any one of the three families, making it an electron-neutrino, or a mu-neutrino, or a tau-neutrino. Or, it may be a superposition of the three family flavors, mixed in some proportions. Now, the standard model assumes that the neutrinos emitted from the sun are in a pure electron-neutrino state, with no mixing. If this assumption is wrong, however, interesting things may happen en route.

Neutrino oscillations is today the most promising of the proposed solutions to the solar neutrino problem. But until recently, the sun had provided no direct evidence that oscillations were indeed taking place.

 

[mark francis]

So you now admit that you were wrong because the sun is five billion years older than the first human on Earth

Secularists claim but do not prove the sun is billions of years old. Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the sun to be between 30 million and 80 million years old.

 

[Tripoli]

Secularists claim but do not prove the sun is billions of years old. Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the sun to be between 30 million and 80 million years old.

What were his calculations, and what kind of lubricant did he use when making them? Besides crackhead your real claim is that the Earth and sun are both 6000 years old, remember silly. So if Lord Kelvin is right, then you are wrong, so you just proved that you are mentally ill.

 

[mark francis]

What were his calculations, and what kind of lubricant did he use when making them? Besides crackhead your real claim is that the Earth and sun are both 6000 years old, remember silly. So if Lord Kelvin is right, then you are wrong, so you just proved that you are mentally ill.

Old age dating methods are based on old age assumptions making old ages speculations. You should not attempt to devise a reliable method to date rocks, for example, that depends on certain assumptions of old age being made in order for the dating methods to work.

Using gravitational contraction as its source of energy is an honest method for dating the sun, but since that would mean the sun is no older than dozens of millions of years it became apparent to secularists that gravitational contraction was blowing holes in the evolutionary old age time frame requirements.

That is why researchers switched to the nuclear fusion theory of the source of the sun's energy, propelling them into a decades long dilemma that resulted from their need to invent the neutrino in order to make their theory work.

 

[Tripoli]

Old age dating methods are based on old age assumptions making old ages speculations. You should not attempt to devise a reliable method to date rocks, for example, that depends on certain assumptions of old age being made in order for the dating methods to work.

That kid is a fully certified schizophrenic word salad

 

[Tripoli]

Old age dating methods are based on old age assumptions making old ages speculations. You should not attempt to devise a reliable method to date rocks, for example, that depends on certain assumptions of old age being made in order for the dating methods to work.

Using gravitational contraction as its source of energy is an honest method for dating the sun, but since that would mean the sun is no older than dozens of millions of years it became apparent to secularists that gravitational contraction was blowing holes in the evolutionary old age time frame requirements.

That is why researchers switched to the nuclear fusion theory of the source of the sun's energy, propelling them into a decades long dilemma that resulted from their need to invent the neutrino in order to make their theory work.

Your meds wore off

 

[Boris Norris]

Old age dating methods are based on old age assumptions making old ages speculations. You should not attempt to devise a reliable method to date rocks, for example, that depends on certain assumptions of old age being made in order for the dating methods to work.

Using gravitational contraction as its source of energy is an honest method for dating the sun, but since that would mean the sun is no older than dozens of millions of years it became apparent to secularists that gravitational contraction was blowing holes in the evolutionary old age time frame requirements.

That is why researchers switched to the nuclear fusion theory of the source of the sun's energy, propelling them into a decades long dilemma that resulted from their need to invent the neutrino in order to make their theory work.

One minute your saying earth is 6000 years old, next your quoting suns etc as billions of years.
You seem very confused with your contradictions attempting to prove a point.

 

[Tripoli]

One minute your saying earth is 6000 years old, next your quoting suns etc as billions of years.
You seem very confused with your contradictions attempting to prove a point.

And he is having great fun trolling you

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

No one invented neutrinos. If they exist, they have always existed.
The Earth is clearly much much older than 6000 years.

 

[Chauncey Gardner]

here we are debating if god is real and the liberals have a real hard on for anyone with any religious beliefs , yet they defend a mentally incompent president who is guilty of crimes but getting a pass because of it. tell you where thier heart is at

I would never debate if God is real or not. There is nothing to debate.

Do rainbow unicorns make ice cream in the 7th dimension?

Maybe! There is no evidence that stands against it. What is there to debate?

 

[Chauncey Gardner]

After secularists invented the neutrino it took them 70 years to finally solve the problems with their new invention.

*DISCOVERED the neutrino

And the person who proposed it from the math was a deist.

Can you go 5 minutes without making up something that is so wrong, it kills brain cells?