not at all he just hangs onto what he believes like a religion....1 he is mistaken about the predictions of electical model ,,,

I don't believe the Sun is Nuclear due to the lack of solar neutrinos. The sun receives its energy from space. There is no reactor in the heart of a star. The standard model has been debunked

This post was edited by doomchaser on Jul 12 2013 12:17pm

my physics professor actually wrote his phd paper on that topic, solar neutrinos are beyond abundant. There is no 'lack of solar neutrinos'.

read here
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/first_results/

This post was edited by majorblood on Jul 12 2013 01:50pm

that is not proven and is just a theory, like the model shows



they just try hang onto the old model is all....it is a good read though ty

This post was edited by doomchaser on Jul 12 2013 02:14pm

man it's like you have no idea what a theory means in science or how science works at all and you just want to find conspiracy theories that go against whats known because you have a delusional mistrust for authority or something.

let me clue you in, LITERALLY NOTHING is proven in science. science isn't a means to prove things, it's meant to show ideas more likely than others. when these ideas are well supported by evidence they are called theories.

solar neutrinos are well documented now, but they weren't decades ago. this is where most conspiracy theories rise up from, when science currently doesn't have workable evidence to match predictions conspiracy theories make up whatever they want to fill in the gaps. what they make up isn't supported by evidence and even after the evidence to support a scientific theory rises up the conspiracy theories still cling to their old ideas, denying the scientific community and accusing it of attempting to control the masses with lies or something equally retarded.

What? ok and what does science have in common with conspiracies? if the model don't work they make shit up to make it work..solar neutrinos must change ...what is the diferrence between the two ?

Science doesn't just 'make shit up'. If a theory doesn't agree with observable evidence the theory needs to be reworked and further experiments must be done to test the new theory. Conspiracy theories simply do not work with evidence or experiments. Conspiracy theories are just ideas which convince people who are unlearned or have a ingrained distrust for authority.

This post was edited by majorblood on Jul 12 2013 03:05pm

When a scientific theory doesn't work, the theory is changed to work. Theories follow the evidence, not the other way around.

Doomchaser, you can make any claims you want to, but until you provide evidence of those claims, they mean nothing.

all theories start as idea's . Conspiracies start from some kind of evidence...Not all conspiracies turn out true like all the things we think science knows turns out true..

For a small example:: Michio Kaku used to teach invisibility was not possible just a couple years ago. Now he knows it is possible

conspiracy theories are not founded on evidence and experiments or they would be science, not conspiracy.

your example with the pop scientist michio kaku does not support your point

ok lets say 3 years ago I told you I believe our nation spies on everyone friends, enemies, and their own citizens...you would say that is just a conspiracy..now you would say soo what...Just because you name it a conspiracy does not make it untrue...Like all theories in science just because it is science, does not make it true...