Pat Robertson Casts 'Shield Of Protection' Ahead Of Hurricane Florence

[marke]

Are you aware that neutrinos have been detected? Not in the expected numbers but detected, showing that the Sun runs on nuclear fusion. What is your theory?

They did finally detect what they assumed were neutrinos several decades after they had to invent neutrinos in order to satisfy their equations based on assumptions of nuclear energy powering the sun. This is from The Solar FAQ, takkorigins:

...Through the work of Bethe and others, it was rapidly realized that fusion was eminently suitable as the desired energy source for stars. ...

This possibility had been noted early on, but experimental difficulties delayed a search for solar neutrinos until the 1960s, when john Bahcall calculated a specific prediction for the neutrino flux, and Raymond Davis proposed to test the prediction. Unfortunately, when the results from Davis et al subsequently came in, they disagreeed with the prediction. That was the root of what was known as the solar neutrino problem.

Interestingly enough, the neutrino was first invented as an ad hoc hypothesis, in order to save the laws of conservation of energy and momentum...

Now, ad hoc hypotheses, invented purely to save our favorite theories, ...

 

[zyzygy]

They did finally detect what they assumed were neutrinos several decades after they had to invent neutrinos in order to satisfy their equations based on assumptions of nuclear energy powering the sun. This is from The Solar FAQ, takkorigins:

...Through the work of Bethe and others, it was rapidly realized that fusion was eminently suitable as the desired energy source for stars. ...

This possibility had been noted early on, but experimental difficulties delayed a search for solar neutrinos until the 1960s, when john Bahcall calculated a specific prediction for the neutrino flux, and Raymond Davis proposed to test the prediction. Unfortunately, when the results from Davis et al subsequently came in, they disagreeed with the prediction. That was the root of what was known as the solar neutrino problem.

Interestingly enough, the neutrino was first invented as an ad hoc hypothesis, in order to save the laws of conservation of energy and momentum...

Now, ad hoc hypotheses, invented purely to save our favorite theories, ...

The problem has been solved. What an ironic post. God is ad hoc.


Many creationists and woo pushers use ad hoc explanations to explain away evidence that contradicts their underlying beliefs, rather than revising those beliefs. For example, many alternative medicines have been disproven or shown to be mere placebos, but believers will make up excuses as to why the controlled and properly conducted experiment was wrong. Some homeopaths, for instance, will cry that the succussion process was carried out incorrectly (as if 9 bangs rather than 10 makes all the difference), or that (inexplicably) it is impossible to do a "double-blind" test on homeopathy. Creationist explanations for how the Grand Canyon is explained via the global flood while similar canyons aren't seen everywhere are varied and ad hoc.

For example:


“”Alice: "It is clearly said in the Bible that the Ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high.
"
Bob: "A purely wooden vessel of that size could not be constructed; the largest real wooden vessels were Chinese treasure ships which required iron hoops to build their keels. Even the Wyoming which was built in 1909 and had iron braces had problems with her hull flexing and opening up, and needed constant mechanical pumping to stop her hold flooding. "
Alice: "It's possible that God intervened and allowed the Ark to float, and since we don't know what gopher wood is, it is possible that it is a much stronger form of wood than any that comes from a modern tree.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_hoc

 

[zyzygy]

They did finally detect what they assumed were neutrinos several decades after they had to invent neutrinos in order to satisfy their equations based on assumptions of nuclear energy powering the sun. This is from The Solar FAQ, takkorigins:

...Through the work of Bethe and others, it was rapidly realized that fusion was eminently suitable as the desired energy source for stars. ...

This possibility had been noted early on, but experimental difficulties delayed a search for solar neutrinos until the 1960s, when john Bahcall calculated a specific prediction for the neutrino flux, and Raymond Davis proposed to test the prediction. Unfortunately, when the results from Davis et al subsequently came in, they disagreeed with the prediction. That was the root of what was known as the solar neutrino problem.

Interestingly enough, the neutrino was first invented as an ad hoc hypothesis, in order to save the laws of conservation of energy and momentum...

Now, ad hoc hypotheses, invented purely to save our favorite theories, ...

You are not very clear. Are you saying that the neutrinos they detect do not exist?

Neutrino that struck Antarctica traced to galaxy 3.7bn light years away
https://www.theguardian.com/science...rctica-traced-to-galaxy-37bn-light-years-away


Last week, scientists announced the 1st known source for ghostly, high-energy neutrinos. The source is a blazar, a billion-solar-mass black hole 3.7 billion light-years away. The discovery establishes a new way to study the universe.
Ghostly neutrino caught in South Pole ice ushers in a new astronomy | Human World | EarthSky

 

[zyzygy]

Arthur B. McDonald, in full Arthur Bruce McDonald, (born August 29, 1943, Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada), Canadian physicist who was awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physics for discovering the oscillations of neutrinos from one flavour (electron, muon, or tau) to another, which proved that these subatomic particles had mass. He shared the prize with Japanese physicist Kajita Takaaki.

SNO began observing neutrinos in 1999, and in 2002 McDonald and his collaborators presented their results. The number of electron-neutrinos was still lower than expected. However, the total number of neutrinos—electron, muon, and tau—was the same as the number of electron-neutrinos predicted by solar models. The electron-neutrinos had undergone oscillations into muon and tau. The neutrino, thought to be massless since its existence was postulated by Wolfgang Pauli in 1930, had mass.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Arthur-B-McDonald

 

[zyzygy]

A good and easy to understand explanation of the neutrino problem and the solution.at 43:20.

 

[devildavid]

I have a theory, just like others do. No more.

No, you have a guess. A theory has to pass rigorous testing.

 

[marke]

Are you not aware that the problem was solved in 2002?
The three years 2001 to 2003 were the golden years of solar neutrino research. In this period, scientists solved a mystery with which they had been struggling for four decades. The solution turned out to be important for both physics and for astronomy. In this article, I tell the story of those fabulous three years.1

The first two sections summarize the solar neutrino mystery and present the solution that was found in the past three years. The next two sections describe what the solution means for physics and for astronomy. The following sections outline what is left to do in solar neutrino research and give my personal view of why it took more than thirty years to solve the mystery of the missing neutrinos. The last section provides a retrospective impression of the solution.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/themes/solving-the-mystery-of-the-missing-neutrinos/


The solar neutrino problem has been settled and the ability of neutrinos to change from one type, or "flavor," to another established directly for the first time by the efforts of the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) collaboration.

This finding gives physicists new confidence that they understand how energy is produced in the sun's core and that neutrinos are just as quirky as we thought.
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200206/sno.cfm

Here is the summary the scientists finally came up with after dealing with the neutrino problem for more than 70 years. The problem: Neutrinos are detectable but the number of neutrinos which are being detected are fewer than the numbers of neutrinos which should be detected if nuclear fusion theories are accurate. The solution: New theories speculate that many neutrinos change from a detectable form to an undetectable form after leaving the sun.

Case closed.

 

[marke]

The problem has been solved. What an ironic post. God is ad hoc.


Many creationists and woo pushers use ad hoc explanations to explain away evidence that contradicts their underlying beliefs, rather than revising those beliefs. For example, many alternative medicines have been disproven or shown to be mere placebos, but believers will make up excuses as to why the controlled and properly conducted experiment was wrong. Some homeopaths, for instance, will cry that the succussion process was carried out incorrectly (as if 9 bangs rather than 10 makes all the difference), or that (inexplicably) it is impossible to do a "double-blind" test on homeopathy. Creationist explanations for how the Grand Canyon is explained via the global flood while similar canyons aren't seen everywhere are varied and ad hoc.

For example:


“”Alice: "It is clearly said in the Bible that the Ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high.
"
Bob: "A purely wooden vessel of that size could not be constructed; the largest real wooden vessels were Chinese treasure ships which required iron hoops to build their keels. Even the Wyoming which was built in 1909 and had iron braces had problems with her hull flexing and opening up, and needed constant mechanical pumping to stop her hold flooding. "
Alice: "It's possible that God intervened and allowed the Ark to float, and since we don't know what gopher wood is, it is possible that it is a much stronger form of wood than any that comes from a modern tree.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_hoc

Dumbdonkey theory: God is wrong, stupid, and a liar. Plus, He does not exist.

 

[marke]

You are not very clear. Are you saying that the neutrinos they detect do not exist?

Neutrino that struck Antarctica traced to galaxy 3.7bn light years away
https://www.theguardian.com/science...rctica-traced-to-galaxy-37bn-light-years-away


Last week, scientists announced the 1st known source for ghostly, high-energy neutrinos. The source is a blazar, a billion-solar-mass black hole 3.7 billion light-years away. The discovery establishes a new way to study the universe.
Ghostly neutrino caught in South Pole ice ushers in a new astronomy | Human World | EarthSky

The talkorigins article claimed neutrinos were first invented before scientists then begin trying to prove they existed and to detect them in the numbers they falsely predicted.

 

[marke]

No, you have a guess. A theory has to pass rigorous testing.

Which has passed the 'rigorous testing" in your opinion? The supposition that God created the universe, or the supposition that some unknown, ignorant, non-existent, accidental, powerless power source alien to science as we know it somehow miraculously big banged the universe into existence from no?thing using nothing

 

[PoS]

I take it you are not aware of the Neutrino problem, dealt with on Wikipedia under the title "The Neutrino problem?"

Its a discrepancy in measurement, a minor issue that was resolved. The fact is neutrinos exists and we've been able to achieve a fusion reaction for a long time now, so your remarks that fusion being a theory is WRONG.

Nope. What's the third option besides creator or chance occurrance?

But I do admire your GREAT FAITH - much more than a religious creationist could possibly muster!

LOL you dont even know what I believe in.

As I said abiogenesis is very plausible. Look up the Miller-Urey experiment.

 

[marke]

As I said abiogenesis is very plausible. Look up the Miller-Urey experiment.

In really cannot believe you said that. Biology and/or history of science must not be your field.

 

[blarg]

No. That's not a third option. Trace it back to the beginning and they're either created, or as you might claim, come about by chance.

chance or chemistry and physics 1 of those

 

[Logicman]

LOL you dont even know what I believe in.

Why don't you lay it out for us? You love to have a go at our beliefs so don't be chicken. Let's see if what you believe in lives up to close scrutiny.

 

[zyzygy]

In really cannot believe you said that. Biology and/or history of science must not be your field.

It certainly is not your field.

 

[zyzygy]

Here is the summary the scientists finally came up with after dealing with the neutrino problem for more than 70 years. The problem: Neutrinos are detectable but the number of neutrinos which are being detected are fewer than the numbers of neutrinos which should be detected if nuclear fusion theories are accurate. The solution: New theories speculate that many neutrinos change from a detectable form to an undetectable form after leaving the sun.

Case closed.

It's not a theory. Observation has proven it to be true. There is no shame in admitting that you were wrong.

 

[zyzygy]

Dumbdonkey theory: God is wrong, stupid, and a liar. Plus, He does not exist.

Does the Hindu pantheon of gods exists because Hindus say they exist? Cut out the childish insults.

 

[zyzygy]

The talkorigins article claimed neutrinos were first invented before scientists then begin trying to prove they existed and to detect them in the numbers they falsely predicted.

They were not invented, they were predicted and then found. You seem to be trying to make a point. What is it?

 

[zyzygy]

Which has passed the 'rigorous testing" in your opinion? The supposition that God created the universe, or the supposition that some unknown, ignorant, non-existent, accidental, powerless power source alien to science as we know it somehow miraculously big banged the universe into existence from no?thing using nothing

Your belief is not a rigorous test.

 

[marke]

It's not a theory. Observation has proven it to be true. There is no shame in admitting that you were wrong.

No, you are wrong again. The researchers who claimed to have solved the neutrino problem did not solve it by observation. The 'solved' the problem by speculating that some neutrinos changed after leaving the sun and became undetectable. In other words, they claimed that the neutrinos were there but we could not see them because they had changed properties before reaching earth.

 

[marke]

They were not invented, they were predicted and then found. You seem to be trying to make a point. What is it?

My point is that the specific quote in talkorigins says that neutrinos were invented.

 

[marke]

Your belief is not a rigorous test.

Never mind my beliefs. Have your opinions about the origin of the universe passed the rigorous test? Has science proved God did not create the universe? No. Has science proved some sort of ignorant powerless big bang miracle brought the worlds into being? No it has not.

 

[zyzygy]

My point is that the specific quote in talkorigins says that neutrinos were invented.

They were predicted as a result of Dirac's equation. Nobody can invent a sub atomic particle. What does this have to do with Pat Robertson the con man?
1930

In a letter to the attendees of a physics conference in Tübingen, Germany, Wolfgang Pauli proposes as a "desperate remedy" the existence of a new neutral particle to explain the apparent energy nonconservation in radioactive decays. During the next few years, scientists elaborate Pauli's theory and conclude that the new particle must be very weakly interacting and extremely light.

1933

Enrico Fermi proposes "neutrino" as the name for Pauli's postulated particle. He formulates a quantitative theory of weak particle interactions in which the neutrino plays an integral part.


Information For the Public

 

[zyzygy]

Never mind my beliefs. Have your opinions about the origin of the universe passed the rigorous test? Has science proved God did not create the universe? No. Has science proved some sort of ignorant powerless big bang miracle brought the worlds into being? No it has not.

Science is not trying to prove that a god did not create the universe. Religion makes a claim with no proof. Before mankind existed there were no gods.

 

[PoS]

My point is that the specific quote in talkorigins says that neutrinos were invented.

LOL pure ignorance. Science is built up steadily from prior research and conclusions. People just didnt make up neutrinos from thin air unlike religion, these particles were hypothesized based on mathematics and prior experimentation and observations. The fact that these theories were later proven to be true means that scientists were on the right track.

There were many theories in the past that were also proven to be false and discarded. Science corrects itself, unlike religion- which is always absolute- even when its wrong.