Starship Asterisk*

Some new ideas were presented in this movie. I realize that the Earth's plate movements as presented and the supreme alignment of everything are a bunch of marlarky. Let's move on to the new ideas that I never heard before and ask some questions.

Neutrinos are very hard to detect, but processes have improved over the years. Have scientists discovered any trends in neutrino production by the Sun in recent years ?

Most neutrinos supposely go through the Earth as if it were transparent. Does any hypothesis exist that predicts that one or more type of neutrinos can react with materials in the core and/or mantle of the Earth and add energy to heat the Earth's interior ?

It is possible that new scientific data and hypotheses can be leaked to the media and presented as fiction. So is there new science or new fiction ? Please stay calm. I am not stark. I am not raving. And I am not mad. I am on a mission to debunk, hopefully.

Doug Ettinger,
Debunker
Pittsburgh, PA

It is unfortunate that I am the one who attempts to give you some sort of an answer, since I am less of an expert on astronomy than many people here. You should probably address the question directly to Chris, or perhaps to bystander or neufer.

Anyway. Personally I'm pretty bored by neutrinos, byt I try to stay moderately up to date with astronomical news. Has there been any interesting news about neutrinos? Any suggestions that they have been increasing or decreasing lately, or that there may be signs that they can react with the Earth's core or mantle and cause catastrophes?

Not that I've noticed. That's all I can say.

I want to add a couple of things, though. I suppose your questions have to do with things that are said in the 2012 movie.

Generally I'd advise against taking such hypotheses seriously at all. Movies about apocalyptic catastrophies threatening or destroying the Earth are a genre all to themselves. They are a genre in the same way that vampire movies and vampire TV shows are a genre to themselves. They are stories that unfold according to previously agreed-on rules. That doesn't make them "true". Just because you see vampires in movies or on TV, should you take the idea of vampires seriously? Is it worth the effort to try to find out if there is any scientific possibility that humans could develop long pointed incisors, be forced to live on fresh blood, develop life-threatening allergies to sunlight and garlic and be able to live forever if they can stay in the dark, feed on blood, avoid allium sativum and avoid having a wooden pole driven through their hearts?

Taking the concepts presented in the 2012 movie seriously and trying to disprove them in order to defend the mainstream idea of our near cosmic future is a bit like disproving the itty-bitty little arguments from a die-hard creationist in order to defend evolution. The thing to remember about the creationist is that his overall idea is crazy and does not hold up to scientific scrutiny in any way. He may, however, be able to attack certain details in the mainstream picture of evolution. Does he claim that there is a mysterious shortage of fossils from the Mesoproterozoic age compared with the number of fossils from the Paleoproterozoic age? And if he says that to you, should you spend years of research trying to find the Mesoproterozoic fossils that the creationist says are missing, or do you tell him that the overall picture that evolution presents holds up just fantastically well in huge numbers of aspects - when it comes to the fossil records, when it comes to similarity of bone structure and other physical aspects of related species, when it comes to our understanding of how DNA works and what causes mutation and what kinds of environmental pressure favor certain individuals and certain qualities and characteristics over others, how immunity and resistance can be explained in terms of that, etecetra, etcetera.

In short, there is an absolutely massive amount of evidence in favour of evolution and no evidence at all that actively disproves it. Creationism, on the other hand, simply doesn't hold up at all. In view of that, should we let the creationist take the initiative and hold us responsible for the seeming scarcity of Mesoproterozoic fossils, or do we hold him responsible for the general utter nonsense that is creationism?

My answer is that we should discuss the overall qualities of evolution versus creationism, in the same way that we should discuss the overall credibility of the 2012 catastrophe theory before we even think of delving into tiny details about neutrinos.

Let me give you just one more example. Suppose someone came up to you and told you that you are not you. Suppose that you replied by presenting loads of evidence that you are indeed you - your driving license, your passport, a huge number of photos of yourself from babyhood to you present age, testimony from family, friends, employers etc. who know you, and so on - all of this proves your identity. But suppose that this other person says that your evidence to prove your identity means nothing, because he has come across dental records which prove that you are not you. Or he has met a person who went to high school with you who has sworn that you are an impostor. Do you believe him? Do you spend years of anxiety trying to prove that your dental records are your own or that the person from high school that you can't even remember must be mistaken? Or do you just say that the person who tried to cast doubt on your identity is one of those people who just love to create uncertainty and doubt even if it is obvious that their claims are false?

Ann

Hello Ann,

After reading your dissertation, I almost forgot what I was pursuing. Ah, yes. I asked some questions about neutrinos that came from some ideas in this silly movie that I just watched. I sounds like you have no interest in the genre of particle physics and that's OK. But particle physics if a definite component of astrophysics. Perhaps I should seek another Forum for addressing even simple questions about particle and quantum physics. But I like this Forum very much because it deals well with people with my level of training.

Science is all about uncertainty and doubt. That's why you and I are in this forum.

Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

dougettinger wrote:
Most neutrinos supposely go through the Earth as if it were transparent. Does any hypothesis exist that predicts that one or more type of neutrinos can react with materials in the core and/or mantle of the Earth and add energy to heat the Earth's interior ? It is possible that new scientific data and hypotheses can be leaked to the media and presented as fiction. So is there new science or new fiction ? Please stay calm. I am not stark. I am not raving. And I am not mad. I am on a mission to debunk, hopefully.

-------------------------------------------------------------
[list][list]The Tell-Tale Heart by Edgar Allan Poe[/list]
TRUE! nervous, very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but why WILL you say that I am mad?
The disease had sharpened my senses, not destroyed, not dulled them. Above all was the sense of
hearing acute. I heard all things in the heaven and in the earth. I heard many things in hell. How
then am I mad? Hearken! and observe how healthily, how calmly, I can tell you the whole story.[/list]

I do not have a follow-up. I need to get more familiar with quotations. You are just too good.

Doug Ettinger

Doug,
Have you seen these pages regarding 2012?
From NASA
and
From Scientific American
I love a good disaster flick and one that contains great special FX. Though Most often frought with bad science, the genre is still enjoyable to me.

Ann,
If not Genesis (creation) in it's purest form, What would you consider "Big Bang" to be?

Ann,
If not Genesis (creation) in it's purest form, What would you consider "Big Bang" to be?

I don't think we are allowed to discuss that here...

I don't care if religious people choose to call the Big Bang the moment of divine creation, but surely a person who accepts everything about evolution and everything about mainstream cosmology shouldn't be called a creationist just because he chooses to call the Big Bang by a religious term?

Ann

Religion aside, would you consider the "Big Bang" to be the moment that ALL creation began?

BMAONE23 wrote:
Religion aside, would you consider the "Big Bang" to be the moment that ALL creation began?

If not religion then your question is metaphysics.

Art Neuendorffer

BMAONE23 wrote:Doug,
Have you seen these pages regarding 2012?
From NASA
and
From Scientific American
I love a good disaster flick and one that contains great special FX. Though Most often frought with bad science, the genre is still enjoyable to me.

Ann,
If not Genesis (creation) in it's purest form, What would you consider "Big Bang" to be?

Thanks for your references, Bmaone23. I was surprised that NASA did not address the neutrinos, but Scientific American did.
The core of the Earth is extremely compressed as was pointed out. I don't think man can conduct any experiment that shows neutrinos are or are not captured by the Earth's core.

Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

dougettinger wrote:Thanks for your references, Bmaone23. I was surprised that NASA did not address the neutrinos, but Scientific American did.
The core of the Earth is extremely compressed as was pointed out. I don't think man can conduct any experiment that shows neutrinos are or are not captured by the Earth's core.

I wouldn't say the core is extremely compressed. It is just iron, probably in an odd phase state. However, the maximum density in the core is only about 1.6 times that of ordinary iron. That's less than the density of mercury or gold, and certainly these materials do not interact with neutrinos at all. So there's no theoretical reason why the core would absorb neutrinos, and there's no experimental evidence, either. If it did, neutrino counters would show some attenuation when the core is between them and the Sun, but the flux is uniform.

BMAONE23 wrote:

Religion aside, would you consider the "Big Bang" to be the moment that ALL creation began?

I guess, but on the other hand, the question does not really, truly fascinate me. The whole question strikes me as too big, too "loose" and too inaccessible to science. Astronomers can't even really describe what happened at the very moment of the Big Bang, or that is what I think anyway. They have absolutely no idea of what caused it, or so I think. Until astronomers (or someone else) can come up with a way to learn more about the Big Bang, the question of whether this mother of all expansions caused all of creation is more philosophical than scientific. Or so I think!

I prefer questions that are slightly more limited. Such as, is there a connection between inflation and dark energy? Is there by any chance also a connection between the Big Bang on one hand and inflation and dark energy on the other hand? Is there an underlying force of some kind that causes the universe to expand outwards, whether this force is the Big Bang, inflation or dark energy? And since it is so hard to know very much about the Big Bang, is there a way for us to learn so much about dark energy that we may eventually begin to fathom what caused inflation? And is there any chance at all that we can work our way backwards to the Big Bang if we ever manage to understand inflation?

Those are the kinds of questions that I prefer. But to each his or her own!

Ann

Chris Peterson wrote:

dougettinger wrote:Thanks for your references, Bmaone23. I was surprised that NASA did not address the neutrinos, but Scientific American did.
The core of the Earth is extremely compressed as was pointed out. I don't think man can conduct any experiment that shows neutrinos are or are not captured by the Earth's core.

I wouldn't say the core is extremely compressed. It is just iron, probably in an odd phase state. However, the maximum density in the core is only about 1.6 times that of ordinary iron. That's less than the density of mercury or gold, and certainly these materials do not interact with neutrinos at all. So there's no theoretical reason why the core would absorb neutrinos, and there's no experimental evidence, either. If it did, neutrino counters would show some attenuation when the core is between them and the Sun, but the flux is uniform.

Chris, I just loved you density arguement. And you are absolutely correct, that neutrino counters should show a difference when the core is between them and the Sun, if the core interacts more so with these massless energy beasts. I have actually not read any word about the results of neutrino counters being on the other side of the core from the Sun, but I will take your word.

"Does the Sun show any trend of changes in neutrino emissions?" was my other question. Such a change could reveal a beginning from hydrogen to helium fusion. The only item that I know about the subject was that neutrinos were missing until it was discovered that there are other types of neutrinos that account for the anomaly in accounting.

Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

Ann wrote:I prefer questions that are slightly more limited. Such as, is there a connection between inflation and dark energy? Is there by any chance also a connection between the Big Bang on one hand and inflation and dark energy on the other hand? Is there an underlying force of some kind that causes the universe to expand outwards, whether this force is the Big Bang, inflation or dark energy? And since it is so hard to know very much about the Big Bang, is there a way for us to learn so much about dark energy that we may eventually begin to fathom what caused inflation? And is there any chance at all that we can work our way backwards to the Big Bang if we ever manage to understand inflation?

The difference is that your questions are scientific ones, framable in rigorous terms that allow formal theories to be developed and tested. The question about the Big Bang and creation is really just one of definitions, or perhaps of philosophy, but definitely not of science.