[far sider]

Are you really a physicist? There are no solar neutrinos. Several major experiments have been conducted to find them, but they are not there. But they have to be there if the sun's heat is nuclear. This threory would explain the lack of neutrinos. But then you would have to explain how a big ball of iron could stay hot for 4.5 billion years.

[Physicist]

Are you really a physicist?

There are no solar neutrinos. Several major experiments have been conducted to find them, but they are not there.

Something tells me I'm rising to bait by saying this, but you're wrong. Solar neutrinos most certainly do exist. They were first measured in the 1960's.

There used to be a solar neutrino deficit problem: the experiments only measured one third of the number of neutrinos that were predicted by the Solar Standard Model. Last summer, the reason for this was discovered by researchers at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory: neutrinos have mass, and they change "flavor" as they travel. There are three flavors of neutrino, but the former experiments only measured one type, electron neutrinos. This wasn't expected to be a problem, because the sun only produces electron neutrinos, but as since they change flavor in transit, that assumption was wrong. SNO measures all three types of neutrino (electron, muon, and tau). When you add them all up, you get exactly what was predicted by the Solar Standard Model.

[Physicist]

I forgot to answer your question: I am really a physicist.

[Axenolith]

:There are no solar neutrinos. Several major experiments have been conducted to :find them, but they are not there.

There are detections, see :

http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/neutrino.html/

[grumpster-dumpster]

"But then you would have to explain how a big ball of iron could stay hot for 4.5 billion years."

I'm not a physicist, but I believe it can be explained away as a complement to the Rosey O'Donnell theory where a big ball of fat stayed popular for almost a decade.