Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

cev08241971 · Dec 5, 2010

quoting out of context...and poor reading comprehension

W.D.Clinger said:
And so on. Alfvén is apologizing for his role in promoting the frozen-in concept

As noted by Alfven, this "concept" was just a mathematical approach to treating plasmas, and as also noted it worked, but did not accurately represent the actual process. In this way it was like Ptolemy's epicycles, or the "curved space" contrivance of relativists. The method also produced the right answer, but for "wrong" reasons.

W.D.Clinger said:
and the non-Maxwellian concept of magnetic field lines that goes with it.

The concept of "magnetic field lines" is a contrivance. These "field lines" are not real, but an imaginary construct. They can not "break" and "reconnect". For this reason, that approach to dealing with plasmas is just as specious as "frozen in" magnetic fields, or ptolemic epicycles. It's a mathematical contrivance that gives the right answer, but does not in any way reflect the reality of the situation. This is actually pretty common when researchers delve wholly into abstract math and never perform experiments to verify their claims.

W.D.Clinger said:
Ironic, isn't it? In attempting to undo the damage he had done to his field, Alfvén condemned the results of his own previous approach as pseudoscience

He did not say his "previous approach" (early tool) was pseudoscience, he said it was pseudopedagogical, which means it's not a suitable teaching method because it does not satisfactorily explain the underlying phenomenon (though it does give the "right" answer). Alfven's mistake was concluding that because it gave the right answer that it may actually illuminate the process itself. The method was developed as a contrivance, an abstract tool for calculating an answer, not as a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon, which should be clear from Alfven's own words that you quoted.

W.D.Clinger said:
writing words that Michael Mozina and other hobbyists would later interpret as a condemnation of the legitimate Maxwellian concepts of magnetic field lines and magnetic reconnection.

Who has quoted these words, where? I think you're dangerously close to setting up a straw men here.

tusenfem · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
He said other people took an abstract tool that only applied to "non-current-carrying" plasmas and tried to apply it in practical calculations, leading to erroneous results, not that Alfven applied this tool improperly, but that other people did. He also said "IMO", which I take to mean "in my opinion".

Welcome to the discussion, cev. Unfortunately, you seem to barge in and give comments that make no sense.

Above in the GeeMac post you go on and on about Alfven, when GeeMac is obviously talking about Birkeland, but that as an aside.

Now you reply to my comment on MM's claim about "dense non-current carrying plasmas" verses "light (whatever that is) current carrying plasmas". As this had to do with possible reconnection in the magnetotail, this comment by MM was stupid, because everyong in space physics knows that there is current flowing across the magnetotail, so so much for this perceived non current carrying.

Then about the frozen in condition. Yes, like I wrote above somewhere tonight, the concept was "abused" as it was new, because people though "what a great tool" and used it wherever. Well, that was decades ago. Now we know when MHD is applicable (actually in a lot of space plasmas) and we know when frozen-in is applicable and when not. I have give actual papers, where people have studied the break down of the frozen in condition (did you read those papers) and I could also give some papers to show that frozen in is a very good approximation for lots of space plasma physical processes, in the Earth's magnetosphere, in the solar wind etc. etc. Naturally, we have be aware (which we are) that there is a limit to this approach, as no physical plasma has an infinite conductivity, and thus every plasma has a finite magnetic diffusion time, thus we can only use the frozen in condition on time scales much smaller than this diffusion time.

Now, what the frozen in condition says is that E + v x B = 0, which naturally is valid in MHD in the co-moving plasma frame. This means that in the laboratory or spacecraft frame, there is an electric field E measured, which should be equal in magnitude as the inductive electric field given by v x B, which happens to be the case in many many processes, with some of the places where it does not hold mentioned in the papers I referenced.

Another place where it does not hold is in regions of magnetic reconnection, in a volume around the so-called X-line. There first is a region where the ions are demagnetized and then further in a region where the electrons are also demagnetized (i.e. they are no longer connected to the magnetic field) and obviously, the frozen in condition would not hold in such a location.

Last but not least, I doubt that Alfvén used "IMO" in any of his writings, but maybe you are mixing up the writings of Mozina with those of Alfvén.

Ziggurat · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
I can make a competing claim that is equally valid:
There hasn't been any evidence that the electric sun model is falsified by any experiment.

What electric sun model?

Now, perhaps you've got some particular detailed model in mind when you say this statement. But most of the time when I hear this phrase, it's spoken by people like Michael Mozina, or Zeuzzz, and frequently in reference to ideas like what's found on thunderbolts.org. What I've seen from them isn't nearly coherent enough to qualify as a model, and what little there is can indeed often be falsified. What can't be falsified is either untestable or too vague to evaluate.

It seems to be your contention that people who realize the electrical nature of the sun are incompetent at math. Do you have some support for this blanket generalization?

Well, I know Michael Mozina is. I know the Thunderbolts folks are. You're new here, so we don't know yet.

cev08241971 · Dec 5, 2010

Tim Thompson has a long history of pseudoskepticism and failure; Phil Plaitt minus $$

Tim Thompson said:
Specifically, I showed you the laboratory experiments more than once.

An experiment to verify "magnetic reconnection" lies outside the realm of the possible. Magnetic field lines are a contrivance, not something physical that can be manipulated or "broke" or "reconnected". People who believe in such things demonstrate just how severely detached from reality they.

Tim Thompson said:
...specifically demonstrating confirmed laboratory observations of magnetic reconnection.

Again, such experiments lie outside the realm of the possible. Magnetic field lines are utterly hypothetical, a contrivance used for visualization purposes. They are not real "lines" that can be severed and reconnected. To suggest that they are is a confession of ignorance and delusion.

Tim Thompson said:
Not once have you ever actually looked at or considered any of these laboratory experiments.

I, for one, am well familiar with "experiments" that supposedly verify this absurd and cartoonish notion of "magnetic reconnection". No serious physicists entertain this idiotic misunderstanding for more than a few seconds before relegating it to the bin with all the other philosophical and metaphysical gibberish.

cev08241971 · Dec 5, 2010

experimental support for "magnetic reconnection" lies outside realm of the possible

W.D.Clinger said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6295678&postcount=3652

The Kopp-Pneuman study you reference is not an experiment but mere philosophy. The researchers in the paper, among other things, make it clear that they do not understand the most rudimentary aspects of plasma, repeatedly referring to the phenomena in question in inappropriate physical and mechanical terms like "shockwave" and "condensation", terms which are utterly meaningless when applied to plasmas. It's also worth stressing that this was just a "study", which consists of observation and storytelling, not any kind of experiment. So this falls flat, it is not experimental verification of anything, it may be safely deemed philosophy, not science.

W.D.Clinger said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6297439&postcount=3672

Again you cite the Kopp-Pneuman 1976 paper, which I doubt you've even read. It's just as irrelevant now as it was thirty seconds ago.

W.D.Clinger said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6303798&postcount=3698

I find no experiment referenced here. What was the point again?

tusenfem · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
If you don't understand the electric sun model, what are you doing trying to refute it? This is truly an astonishing statement from you. I suggest you go learn about the electric star model before you try to dismantle it or ridicule it. You can start by going to Anthony L. Peratt's web site on the plasma universe. Maybe you're familiar with Peratt, he's one of the world's leading physicists, widely published, universally respected in the field, a researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Maybe you've heard of Los Alamos as well. It should take you at least a day to cover everything on that site. Come back tomorrow if you've read it all and we can begin to have an intelligent, informed discussion.

There is no specific electric sun model. Most definitely not by Peratt, he may have some mistakes in his modeling of galaxies, which he presents in his book and one or two papers in IEEE, but I doubt you will find him claiming that the sun is electric.

Now, there is e.g. the Juergens' model, which simple calculations can show that it cannot work. I have done the math and showed that near the Earth the magnetic field generated by the current Juergens needs would be several orders of magnitude larger that we actually measure. (apart from that, one would not find the magnetic field to be moving away from the Sun in Juergens' model)

Then there is Alfvén's heliospheric current system. Although this is not thought for powering the Sun, but more more like the Sun acting like a unipolar inductor. Some want to claim this as prove for the electric Sun, however these currents have not been found by e.g. the Ulysses misson crossing over the Solar poles several times at various solar activity rates.

Then there is the notion that the Sun is just a plasma discharge, don't really know who proposed this etc. etc.

However, asking for any detailed model (like we have for the fusion model) we get nothing, zilch, zero, nope. And as this is a public bulletin board, we plasma(astro)physicists and space physicists feel it as our duty to show the general readers of this board that there are claims about e.g. the Sun that are bunk, and not related to anything that is known in mainstream physics nor is claimed by important scientists like Alfvén, Birkeland or Peratt.

Ziggurat · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
If you don't understand the electric sun model, what are you doing trying to refute it?

You misunderstood my question. I have heard more than one proposal under the heading "electric sun model". When I ask "what electric sun model", I do not do so because I've never seen such a thing, it's because the term doesn't specify what you're talking about, because there isn't one coherent "electric sun model". So I repeat my question, since you never answered it: what "electric sun model"?

I suggest you go learn about the electric star model before you try to dismantle it or ridicule it.

I've learned plenty about what Mozina and the Thunderbolts folks advocate, and I've already dismantled it, as my above links demonstrate. If you have a different electric sun model, then I'm all ears.

You can start by going to Anthony L. Peratt's web site on the plasma universe. Maybe you're familiar with Peratt, he's one of the world's leading physicists, widely published, universally respected in the field, a researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Maybe you've heard of Los Alamos as well. It should take you at least a day to cover everything on that site. Come back tomorrow if you've read it all and we can begin to have an intelligent, informed discussion.

Peratt's "plasma universe" model is a model for the structure of the universe. It is not a stellar model. If you want to talk about plasma cosmology (and not an electric sun theory), then go ahead. But 1) his cosmology has already been falsified (including my own minor contribution on this board), and 2) even if it were correct, it doesn't prove that an electric sun theory has any validity at all. Because (again) Peratt's plasma universe is not an electric sun model.

Oh, and a little tip: before you try patronizing condescension, it helps if you actually know a bit about who you're dealing with, and demonstrate a bit of mastery of the subject yourself. It'll save you from future embarrassment.

tusenfem · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
I don't know how you could so completely misunderstand what he said, unless it was deliberate. He said the exact opposite of what you claim, that "magnetic reconnection" is an absurd fantasy, in a nutshell.

mmmm let's look once more at what Alfven said in his paper in Journal of Geophysical Research:

HA said:
In case the magnetic field varies with time, the geometry near neutral points may change in such a way that it is legitimate to speak of a 'field-line reconnection.' We cannot exclude the possibility that some of the field-line reconnection formalism may be applicable, but this remains to be proved. In fact, of the most conspicuous nonstationary phenomenon, magnetic substorms are explained by current disruption (survey by Boström [1974]).

So, this hardly sounds like "absurd fantasy, in a nutshell."

And lo-and-behold it has been shown to be exactly, e.g. by Runov et al. in the greatest plasma physic laboratory, the Earth's magnetotail. Everything in agreement with the picture of magnetic reconnection (including the currents that are flowing) and nothing you can model with just a so-called circuit reconnection. And that is just one paper dealing with this process using cluster data. Cluster, the mission designed to measure magnetic field gradients so electic currents could be deduced.

Ziggurat · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
An experiment to verify "magnetic reconnection" lies outside the realm of the possible. Magnetic field lines are a contrivance, not something physical that can be manipulated or "broke" or "reconnected". People who believe in such things demonstrate just how severely detached from reality they.

This is a semantic objection. Semantic debates are the most boring of all, and semantic objections are the least substantive of all.

Here's an equation for a magnetic field:
[latex]$\vec{B}=by\hat{i}+ax\hat{j}$[/latex]
Now, does this field satisfy Maxwell's equations? Why, yes it does, for all values of a and b. Test it if you don't believe me. In fact, a and b can vary, and the field will remain a valid solution to Maxwell's equations. It is, therefore, a physically acceptable magnetic field, even with varying a and b.

Now, what do the magnetic field lines look like for this field? Well, here are some of them:

Note that for all a < b, a magnetic field line connects the upper left point to the upper right point. For all a > b, a magnetic field line connects the upper left point to the lower left point. So if we change our magnetic field by varying a and b, we can change the magnetic field line connection of that upper left point. We have just performed magnetic reconnection by varying our field.

Now, you can object to the terminology all you want to, but that really doesn't matter. The actual field configuration experienced a change, we have given this change a name, and nothing about your distaste for the name has any bearing on whether or not the change happened. It did. And it happened in full compliance with Maxwell's equations.

DeiRenDopa · Dec 5, 2010

Welcom to JREF, cev08241971!

cev08241971 said:
Juergens calculated the amount of current powering the sun based on "solar wind" observations.

He did?

What was his answer? And where did he publish it?

I had a look at the website you recommended, but could find no answers to these questions at "Anthony L. Peratt's web site on the plasma universe".

Do you happen to know what the estimated power output (energy per unit time) of the Sun is, from Juergens' calculations?

Ziggurat · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
You make a common error, that of thinking the collection of fables you learned about the sun (and the rest of the universe, really) is "standard physics". Nothing could be further from the truth. What you seem to be characterizing as "standard physics" is nothing more than wishful thinking and flights of fancy.

And yet, somehow, this claim is never actually backed up.

The electric sun model doesn't conflict with any known, established physical principles

Again, what model?

The only models I've seen DO conflict with known, established physical principles. If you've got some other electric sun model, then please, share it with the class.

Couple that with the fact that electric universe is the only modern cosmology firmly rooted in both experimental verification and direct observation of reality

Except, of course, for all the fundamental observations that conflict with it. Never mind those. Move along folks, nothing to see here. Ignore the red shifts, ignore the CMB, ignore the galactic rotation curves, ignore the violations of the laws of thermodynamics. Stop rubbernecking at the trainwreck of electric universe failures, and pretend that it all went swimmingly.

You aren't demonstrating that you're any better than Michael Mozina. You can't offer up facts, only dogma.

Reality Check · Dec 5, 2010

clearing up some confusion

cev08241971 said:
I'm not a "proponent" of anything. I don't take sides when it comes to science, I let the evidence dictate my beliefs. That way I avoid investing my time and effort into defending ideas that may have no merit. You should try it some time.

I did not say that you were - I said that it looks like you were.
It seems that you are just ignorant of the flaws in the electric sun theory that make it invalid.

cev08241971 said:
You're right, totally irrelevant, why bring it up.

Because you asked the question so I answered it, i.e. Alfven was wrong about Plasma cosmology

cev08241971 said:
Again, irrelevant. I'm not interested in your characterizations of this person, it's not relevant to the discussion and most likely an ill-informed opinion based on your prejudice and ego.

Wrong: It is relevant when someone demonstrates time and time again that they cannot understand the basics of physics, e.g. the siple fact tha plasmas cannot have electrical discharges within them.
That happens to be a characteristic of MM. That characteristic makes it unlikely that he can iunderstand Alfvens works. The fact that he is often wrong about it confirms this.

cev08241971 said:
I wasn't aware it was "his" idea, but it's been pretty firmly established by direct observation that the sun does have a rigid surface

It been pretty firmly established by direct observation that the sun does have a syrface of plsams.

cev08241971 said:
Running difference images from TRACE ...

That is MM's fantasy from his ignorance of what RD movies are. I suggest that you take this to the electric Electric universe theories here. thread.

cev08241971 said:
Spectra indicate it is made of calcium-rich and iron-rich rock.

That is a lie. Spectra show that the photosphere is made of mostly hydrogen.

cev08241971 said:
Stellar fusion models are falsified by nearly every observable property or behaviour of the sun.

Another lie.

The observed flux of neutrinos means that fusion must be happening in the Sun somewhere.
FYI Neutrino oscillation has been confirmed not only for solar neutrinos but also for neutrinos from reactors.
The lack of the gamma rays produced by fusion means that something must be converting them into other wavelengths, e.g. by absorption and reemission. For example, thousands of km of plasma.

Therefore the sun is powered by fusion at its core where it just so happens conditions (pressure and temperature) happen to be correct for fusion.

cev08241971 said:
Yes, of course, everyone who disagrees with you lies, or is an idiot, or both. I'm familiar with the tactics of troll mafias.

Wrong: Anyone who demonstrates that they are an idiot is an idiot.
Any one who lies is a liar.

cev08241971 said:
Your own statements expose the fallacy of your beliefs. You apparently think in order to be a scientist, somebody has to pay you for it.

Wrong: In order to be a scientist you have to study science. I was never paid for it (in fact I paid for my scientific educations and post graduate work). There are many amateurs who have made valuable contributions to science. It just happens that people who are paid to do science tend to ... do science :eye-poppi

!

cev08241971 said:
I'm not convinced by anything that you've said that you understand the scientific method. Of course you're free to try and change my mind about that. If you like you can start by defining the scientific method, as you understand it.

I do: Scientific method.

I'm not convinced by anything that you've said that you understand the scientific method.Of course you're free to try and change my mind about that. If you like you can start by defining the scientific method, as you understand it.

cev08241971 said:
I'm not convinced you understand the distinction between science and pseudoscience.

I do: psuedoscience.

cev08241971 said:
Virtually every observable property and behaviour of the sun falsifies stellar fusion.

See above for the fact that you are lying.

cev08241971 said:
Are you speaking about yourself in plural or are you talking about yourself and others?

I am specifically speaking about the list of people I mentioned before - people who have demonstrated a basic knowledge of science in the forum.
I am also talking about anyone who can read and understand the definition of an electric discharge, e.g. anyone who can read Wikipedia.
I am also talking abut anyone who remembers their high school science classes.
I am also talking about anyone who has read a textbook on electromagnetism.

cev08241971 said:
Your claim that "breakdown of a dielectric" is required for electric discharge is a contrivance.
...

Wrong: It is the definition of an electrical discharge.

cev08241971 said:
Plasma is highly conductive, not quite a superconductor, but better than any wires we can as yet fabricate. This is why it's so perplexing when people deny that there is electricity in space (which is over 99% plasma), or when people claim there is electricity in space but it "doesn't do anything". The very idea is absurd on its face if you have even a rudimentary understanding of plasma physics.

Firstly peopld (e.g. astronomers) do not deny that there are elctrical currents in space. They just know what situations thay happen in. Astronomers do happen to concentrate on magnetic fields because

They are easier to detect than electrical fields.
If you know the magnetic field then you can deduce the electrical field (and vice versa). This is known as electromagnetism.

The very idea of no electric currents in plasmas is absurd on its face if you have even a rudimentary understanding of plasma physics. That same rudimentary understanding of plasma physics puts limits on the size and energy of these electric currents.

tusenfem · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
Don't confuse your ignorance of this material with its absence.

I have been longer in this discussion (about 10 years or so) than you. No such model has been agreed on by any of the proponents

cev08241971 said:
I directed you to Peratt's web site because it's a good place to begin your education about plasma. Go read all the information on Peratt's plasma universe web site, it's very illuminating, then you'll have the basis for understanding the majority of the claims made by electric universe adherents.

Thanks that you like to edumacate me, however I already have my PhD in plasmaastrophysics. You did, however, not link to any page, and the plasma universe[.url] is not by Peratt but by Ian Tresman, who also knows little plasma physics, but who actually was willing to learn from what was explained to him. Have not seen him for a long time on JREF, and he is definitely not related to Peratt, he just like to copy Peratt's writings on his wiki pages.

cev08241971 said:
Once you have a grasp for the way plasmas behave, and once you learn that over 99% of the universe is plasma, you're on much better footing to understand the electric universe concepts.

Dear cev, I work with plasmas on a daily basis, the plasma in [url=http://esoads.eso.org/abs/2008JGRA..11308S90V]the Earth's magnetosphere, or near Venus or for that case near the moon Europa. And those are only three of about 100 papers on which I am (co)author.

cev08241971 said:
This is utter nonsense. Juergens calculated the amount of current powering the sun based on "solar wind" observations. Juergens showed the sun's photosphere exhibited "anode tufting", a common effect observed in plasmas subjected to electric currents. Juergens demonstrated the many lines of evidence falsifying the notion the sun was powered internally (by any means, least of all sustained fusion from a self-compressed gas). Juergens noted that all of space was conductive, just as are all stars. The only competing ideas suggest hitherto unverified principles and imaginary beasts that known physics preclude. Juergen's electric star model does a better job of explaining the observed properties of the sun, virtually all of which falsify stellar fusion models.

Really? I remember that most of the model were guesstimations. this is apparently the model but note that it was not written by Juergens, but by the Kronos editor. However, the fact that both electrons and ions move at equal speeds away from the Sun in the solar wind is an easy disproval of the Juergens model.

cev08241971 said:
Feel free to show this again, I can hardly wait.

Just use the search on this forum with my username and e.g. Juergens as a search term.

cev08241971 said:
Magnetic field lines are a contrivance, not something real that can be manipulated or "broken" or "reconnected" or "moved". This fundamental misunderstanding is probably at the root of many people's willful ignorance. They can't let go of this idea, so any conflicting evidence is discarded in favor of comfort zone and ego protection.

Sure, they are not real, anyone knows that, but they serve a purpose, which you don't seem to understand. Using the concept of field lines makes it possible to make various processes visible, e.g. the magnetic tension as the curvature of the magnetic field lines and the magnetic pressure as the density of magnetic field lines or the differnence in magnetic topology from anti-parallel directed magnetic field to bend closed field lines where the field turns from one direction to another.

cev08241971 said:
To sum up, a refutation of the electric sun model is a pipe dream. It is routinely verified by observations, and experiments readily reproduce the phenomena attributed to it. It's a slam dunk. Stellar fusionists are simply dead wrong, and they always have been.

Oh, it's a pipe dream alright, because no such model exist, and thus (if I would smoke) I would have to smoke a lot to see a model to refute. I can only refute bad plasma physics that is presented.

Happy dreams, cev, take another smoke.

cev08241971 · Dec 5, 2010

semantics; aka "accuracy"

Ziggurat said:
This is a semantic objection.

Your claim that this is a "semantic objection". By your logic, claims that presents don't come from Santa Claus because Santa Claus is not real is a mere "semantic objection". Nothing could be further from the truth, as I'm sure any reasonable person would agree. Christmas presents don't come from Santa Claus because Santa Claus is not real. Magnetic field lines don't "break" and "reconnect" because they are not real. They certainly don't "move" or become "tangled" as astronogers will frequently quip.

Ziggurat said:
Here's an equation for a magnetic field:

One thing you should always be keenly aware of is that equations are not reality. Math is just a language used to describe reality. I can use language to say "this chair is red" when the chair is in fact blue. I can say "this chair is red because elves made it red" when in fact it had been painted. The universe is not bound by our use of language, be it english, or math. Equations are not reality, equations seek to describe reality (sometimes, other times they're just games for amusement), just as the solar system is not bound by Ptolemy's equations (even though they accurately predicted the position of planets over time).

Ziggurat said:
It is, therefore, a physically acceptable magnetic field, even with varying a and b.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, the equation you cite is an equation, it is not a "physically acceptable magnetic field", as you describe it. An equation is not a magnetic field. A magnetic field is not an equation. Any more than the word "apple" is an apple you can eat or any more than a picture of oxygen can sustain a drowning man.

Ziggurat said:
Now, what do the magnetic field lines look like for this field?

The "field lines" don't really "look like" anything, they are a mathematical contrivance. Your misunderstanding of this goes a long way toward explaining your apparent detachment from reality.

Your cartoon pictures notwithstanding...

Reality Check · Dec 5, 2010

Citations for running difference images, etc. show a rigid surface on the Sun

cev08241971 said:
Running difference images from TRACE, SOHO and a slew of other solar-observing satellites have shown this beyond doubt.

First asked 6 December 2010
cev08241971
Can you give the citations to the scientific literature that demonstrates that running difference images, etc. show a rigid surface on the Sun?

Otherwise I will have to conclude that you suffer from the same delusion the MM has, i.e. that RD images are like photos.

Reality Check · Dec 5, 2010

Citations for "Spectra indicate it is made of calcium-rich and iron-rich rock"

cev08241971 said:
Spectra indicate it is made of calcium-rich and iron-rich rock.

First asked 6 December 2010
cev08241971
Can you give your citations to the scientific literature that states that the surface of the Sun (the photosphere) is made of calcium-rich and iron-rich rock.

tusenfem · Dec 5, 2010

unfortunately, due to Alfvén (amongst others) plasma physics is one of the best mathematically described parts of physics, into the smallest details and just with a few Maxwell equations. Math is very real in plasma physics.

Reality Check · Dec 5, 2010

Citations for "Stellar fusion models are falsified by ... property of the sun"

cev08241971 said:
Stellar fusion models are falsified by nearly every observable property or behaviour of the sun. These same features are readily explained in terms of electric discharge.

First asked 6 December 2010
cev08241971
Can you give a list of citations to the scientific literature that shows that stellar fusion models are falsified by every observable property or behaviour of the sun?

Or should I conclude that thsi is a fantsy of yours backed up by no evidence?

Reality Check · Dec 5, 2010

Citations for every property of the sun in terms of electric discharges

cev08241971 said:
Stellar fusion models are falsified by nearly every observable property or behaviour of the sun. These same features are readily explained in terms of electric discharge.

First asked 6 December 2010
cev08241971
Can you give a list of citations to the scientific literature that readily explains nearly every observable property or behaviour of the sun in terms of electric discharge?

Perhaps you can start with the creation of the observed neutrino flux.

Or should I conclude that thos is a fantsy of yours backed up by no evidence?

Ziggurat · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
Your claim that this is a "semantic objection". By your logic, claims that presents don't come from Santa Claus because Santa Claus is not real is a mere "semantic objection".

Well, yes. If you want to say mom and dad are Santa, then presents come from Santa, and the statement is true. You may object to defining Santa that way, but the reality (mom and dad bring presents) is unaffected.

Similarly with magnetic reconnection. You can object to calling certain magnetic field configuration changes "magnetic reconnection". But it doesn't matter: that's what those field configuration changes are called, and those field configuration changes are real.

Which is why, not surprisingly, you haven't actually challenged the field I presented you with. The field I gave you undergoes changes, those changes are real, you can't actually dispute that. All you can do is object to calling those changes "magnetic reconnection". A purely semantic objection of no consequence.

One thing you should always be keenly aware of is that equations are not reality. Math is just a language used to describe reality.

Unless you can demonstrate that either the math is wrong, or that the math does not describe reality, then this is irrelevant. You have done neither.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, the equation you cite is an equation, it is not a "physically acceptable magnetic field", as you describe it. An equation is not a magnetic field. A magnetic field is not an equation. Any more than the word "apple" is an apple you can eat or any more than a picture of oxygen can sustain a drowning man.

You're descending into a rather pathetic form of scientific solipsism.

It was profound in the art world almost a century ago. In the current context, it's just a rather sad attempt to rescue yourself from an argument you're losing.

The "field lines" don't really "look like" anything, they are a mathematical contrivance.

So what? They still represent a change that happens in the actual field. I can still define those field lines unambiguously and rigorously in direct reference to the actual physical fields.

It's funny how insistent you are that electric sun models conform to known physics, and then turn around and try to discard the mathematical basis on which that known physics is, well, known.

cev08241971 · Dec 5, 2010

Fantasy Check needs a reality check

Reality Check said:
Can you give a list of citations to the scientific literature that shows that stellar fusion models are falsified by every observable property or behaviour of the sun?

I can readily give you a short list of observable properties of the sun that falsify stellar fusion models:

o - "temperature minimum" in the corona - unexplainable if heat source is internal radiating out
o - extremely high corona "temperature" - spectrum inexplicable except by electric discharge
o - "solar wind" acceleration - unexplainable EXCEPT in terms of electric discharge
o - rigid calcium-rich and iron-rich surface - unexplainable, unanticipated by the "self compressing gas ball" stellar fusion model
o - CME's and "solar flares" - inexplicable by stellar fusion models without resorting to untenable ideas like "magnetic field line reconnection"

This is a very short list, but as I pointed out, virtually every observable feature of the sun falsifies the self-compressing gas ball stellar fusion model.

Reality Check said:
Or should I conclude that thsi is a fantsy of yours backed up by no evidence?

Your conclusions as a whole don't show any sign of being in any way backed up by evidence, so why should this conclusion of yours be any different?

Reality Check · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
There is nothing about the idea that the sun is powered by electric currents that is in any way "flawed".

Yes there is, e.g. the absence of the required electric currents, etc.

cev08241971 said:
You are apparently under the misguided impression that wikipedia is a science journal.

No I am not. It is a conveniant place to linke to when the article is backed up by tscitarions to teh literature.

cev08241971 said:
Your claim that plasmas can not have electric discharges within them is demonstrably false. Perform a Google web search for "electric discharges in plasma" if you want to satisfy yourself that you are indeed exactly wrong and wholly misguided in this claim.

I have. I see plenty of references to the generation of plasma.
I also know that the defintion of electrical discharge rules out an electrical discharge in plasmas.

cev08241971 said:
Indeed, the rigid iron-rich and calcium-rich surface of the sun is a plasma. So is the photosphere above it, the corona above that. A reasonable and logical explanation for such plasma that ignores electric discharge can not be found.

Then you are lying trice:

You lied about it being rock.
You are still lying about it being "rigid iron-rich and calcium-rich".
0.16% is not iron-rich. Calcium is even rarer.
A reasonable and logical explanation for the photosphere and corona can be given that ignores electric discharges.

cev08241971 said:
I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post, as you essentially call me a liar shortly after this bit.

Well if you do not lie then I will not call you a liar.
But you can easily prove me wrong - just give citations to the literature.
In hindsight, maybe you are just ignorant about solar phsyics. But you seem to be really, really sure that you are right, even without any citations.

cev08241971 · Dec 5, 2010

science is not practiced as a religion

Reality Check said:
Perhaps you can start with the creation of the observed neutrino flux.

It's interesting you bring up "neutrino flux", another nail in the coffin of stellar fusion. The "observed neutrino flux" is a third of what's predicted by stellar fusionists, and no attempt is made to rule out other causes of these supposed "neutrinos" (which only last for fractions of a second, how do they get from the sun to Earth, that's an eight-minute trip). People who cite this "neutrino evidence" clearly don't even understand what a "neutrino" is, it's a transient side effect, like a flash or a bang from an explosion. Bombs aren't made of flashes and bangs, though, and the sun isn't made of fusion.

Reality Check said:
Or should I conclude that thos is a fantsy of yours backed up by no evidence?

Again, I've seen no indication that evidence in any way plays a part in what you believe or conclude or try to contradict, so why should that change. You are going to "conclude" what you already believe, despite any evidence to the contrary. That's not science, that's religion, basically.

D'rok · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
o - rigid calcium-rich and iron-rich surface - unexplainable, unanticipated by the "self compressing gas ball" stellar fusion model

What rigid surface? Show it to us.

Ziggurat · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
If you're just going to arbitrarily redefine words so they "support" your claims, why stop with mom, dad and Santa, just redefine the definition of "word" to "whatever Ziggurat says it is at any time; subject to continual revision and internal contradiction".

I didn't come up with the definition of "magnetic reconnection". And it doesn't matter how much you object to that definition, that's still all you're objecting to. The actual magnetic field changes which the term is used to describe still happen. You have not, you can not, challenge what happens to the actual fields. And the definition isn't continually changing, and it has no internal contradictions, it only contradicts what you want the words to mean (ie, your objection is semantic). That's why the math always works out. That, in fact, is how you can tell if there are any internal contradictions.

But there's more than a touch of irony here. On the one hand, you're trying to argue for the immutability of terminology when discussing why magnetic reconnection is wrong, but arguing that not only language but also math is arbitrary when trying to dismiss the magnetic field I presented you with. Does the cognitive dissonance hurt?

Reality Check · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
I can readily give you a short list of observable properties of the sun that falsify stellar fusion models:

That is not what I asked for: Citations please.

But your entire list is wong

cev08241971 said:
o - "temperature minimum" in the corona - unexplainable if heat source is internal radiating out
o - extremely high corona "temperature" - spectrum inexplicable except by electric discharge
o - "solar wind" acceleration - unexplainable EXCEPT in terms of electric discharge
o - rigid calcium-rich and iron-rich surface - unexplainable, unanticipated by the "self compressing gas ball" stellar fusion model (a lie since such a surface has not been observed) o - CME's and "solar flares" - inexplicable by stellar fusion models without resorting to untenable ideas like "magnetic field line reconnection"

(my highlight added)
All of these are explained (but not completely) by standard physics, including magnetic reconnection and wave heating.

You have explained none of these by citing the electric dicharge literature.

Reality Check · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
It's interesting you bring up "neutrino flux", another nail in the coffin of stellar fusion. The "observed neutrino flux" is a third of what's predicted by stellar fusionists, and no attempt is made to rule out other causes of these supposed "neutrinos" (which only last for fractions of a second, how do they get from the sun to Earth, that's an eight-minute trip). People who cite this "neutrino evidence" clearly don't even understand what a "neutrino" is, it's a transient side effect, like a flash or a bang from an explosion. Bombs aren't made of flashes and bangs, though, and the sun isn't made of fusion.

What a display of ignoirance cev08241971 :jaw-dropp

!
FYI

The neutrino flux has been explained - neutrino oscillations.
Neutrino last for ever. They do not decay. They do not have a half life. They do oscillate between types.
The sun is made of hydrogen, helium, and other trace elements.
Fusion is a process, not an element.

Ziggurat · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
o - "temperature minimum" in the corona - unexplainable if heat source is internal radiating out

The temperature minimum means that there must be a secondary heating mechanism for the corona. But the corona is mostly transparent. Even at much higher temperatures, the corona radiates much less heat than the photosphere. The power output from the corona is therefore MUCH smaller, and consequently the heating mechanism for the corona is much weaker than for the photosphere. So this is in absolutely no way at odds with the primary heat source being internal.

o - extremely high corona "temperature" - spectrum inexplicable except by electric discharge

The spectrum is explicable by a high temperature. Again, the corona is mostly transparent, which conversely means it radiates very little. High temperatures can be sustained with low power inputs when radiative heat losses are low, and they are. You don't need electric discharge. In fact, you cannot get electric discharge in the sun. For electric discharge, you need an electric field to drive a first-order phase transition from an insulating to a conducting state. But plasma is already conducting, even in the absence of any field. It cannot experience a first order phase transition from insulating to conducting phases. Currents will vary smoothly with applied field, but you just get current, you don't get a discharge.

o - rigid calcium-rich and iron-rich surface - unexplainable, unanticipated by the "self compressing gas ball" stellar fusion model

There is no such surface.

This is a very short list, but as I pointed out, virtually every observable feature of the sun falsifies the self-compressing gas ball stellar fusion model.

Funny, but aside from being completely wrong on every point (I haven't addressed them all, but others have in past threads here), you seem to have forgotten the rather most important observable feature of the sun: the total power output.

Fusion explains the total solar power output. Electric sun models... cannot.

Reality Check · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
We see abundant evidence of the electric field powering the sun.

No we do not - see the Ulysses mission results.
We see plenty of evidence of small scale electrical effects on planetary surfaces. I especially like the electrostatic discharges on the moon.

Once again: If you make unsupported assertions that are obviously wrong then I will call you out on it. I will even call you a liar if they are really outrageous, such as your assertion that the phsotosphere is made of iron-rich, calcium-rich rock which you then changed to plsma.

If I am wrong then produce evidence for your assertions. That evidence is not yet more unsupported assertions.

Ziggurat · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
I've given you several lines of evidence that falsify stellar fusion. Though you again call me a liar in this post, I will answer this charge. Go do your own research if you're not satisfied that there is a temperature minimum in the sun's corona. That's pretty firmly established by all accounts (except yours, apparently). This temperature minimum can not take place if the sun is lit by internal heat radiating outward.

Your understanding of thermodynamics is rather lacking. Why do you think there can't be a minimum with internal heating? There most certainly can be. All that's required is 1) a secondary heating mechanism, and 2) transparency in the outer, hotter layer.

The second condition is rather directly measurable. And the standard solar model includes the first condition.

So what you think of as a contradiction is really only an example of your own failure to understand basic physics - not just stellar physics, but simple thermodynamics as well.

dasmiller · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
I wasn't aware it was "his" idea, but it's been pretty firmly established by direct observation that the sun does have a rigid surface. Running difference images from TRACE, SOHO and a slew of other solar-observing satellites have shown this beyond doubt. Spectra indicate it is made of calcium-rich and iron-rich rock.

cev08241971 said:
Indeed, the rigid iron-rich and calcium-rich surface of the sun is a plasma. So is the photosphere above it, the corona above that.

So . . . it's a plasma rock? Do we have laboratory confirmation of such a thing?

A reasonable and logical explanation for such plasma that ignores electric discharge can not be found.

I believe that . . .

Ziggurat · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
Your own conditions falsify your premise, that "internal heating" can accomplish a temperature minimum as you travel from the source. As you point out, that can only take place with "secondary heating" that is external. You've falsified your own thesis, congratulations.

My thesis is that the temperature minimum doesn't contradict the standard model, which contradicts your claim that the minimum does. Since neither the standard model nor anything I said asserts that there is no secondary heating (of MUCH less power), you are simply constructing a straw man.

You call it a contradiction but then you prove that it's not. Make up your mind, stay on one side of the issue or the other.

Try paying attention next time. I never called it a contradiction. YOU did. I said it's not.

Either that or learn from your mistakes and from the knowledge of others like myself.

You have displayed no knowledge, but have revealed ignorance. And poor reading skills

cev08241971 · Dec 5, 2010

thesis is wrong, hence its wrongness

Ziggurat said:
My thesis is that the temperature minimum doesn't contradict the standard model

and your thesis is wrong...next...

Ziggurat · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
What the "temperature minimum" means is that stellar fusion is wrong.

No it doesn't.

The "temperature" is really the spectrum, it's called "temperature" because it's based on black body formulas that consider every emission of light to be due to radiant heat. This assumption doesn't hold, even here on Earth, where we routinely use the same technique to "measure" the "temperature" of fluorescent light tubes, "temperatures" that range in the thousands of kelvins, clearly this is not "temperature" in the sense that you measure with a thermometer.

The "temperature" used to rate fluorescent lights is a visual equivalent, based upon the sensitivity of the human eye, not the full spectrum. They are intended to approximate how our eyes perceive the color of a source, they do not represent the actual temperature of the source in any way. These calculations are completely different, and yield completely different numbers, than calculations of the actual temperature based on the observed spectrum plus thermodynamics. So you have, yet again, revealed your ignorance.

Second, the only assumption is that the source is not too far from equilibrium. And guess what: that's plenty true.

The sun is not a black body radiator, it is much more like a fluorescent light tube than it is glowing iron in a blacksmith's forge.

Yeah, not so much.
Sun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
Fluorescent lamp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fluorescent_lighting_spectrum_peaks_labelled.png

Yes, you can try to explain the sun's spectrum in terms of temperature and black body formulas.

Indeed. And it works great.

The problem arises when you compare that derived "temperature" to the observed, very rigid, very solid surface of the sun. Clearly it's not "millions of degrees".

First off, the surface of the sun isn't solid. Second, indeed, clearly it's not millions of degrees. That derived temperature tells you it's not millions of degrees.

That the sun is a black body radiator is readily falsified by direct observation.

Direct observation (see above graph) shows that it is a black body radiator.

The corona, however, is not.

Nothing about the sun's power output is inconsistent with electric sun models.

Sure it is. You can't get an electric model to produce the necessary power without encountering complete absurdities, like an exploding sun.

But since you're so sure, what's the voltage and total current driving this power output? We're constrained by P=IV, so give me I and give me V. Those are fundamental parameters in an electric model, surely you should know those. Otherwise, you don't really have a model, do you?

Nothing about the sun's output is consistent with the calculations of stellar fusionists, on top of that.

Wrong again.

The hypothetical processes have never been demonstrated in the lab

What, fusion? Sure it has. Plenty of times, and in many ways.

electricity is well understood

Indeed, but not by you. In fact, it is precisely because we understand electricity that we know it cannot account for the power output of the sun.

why leap to the conclusion of magic when we have the very real electromagnetic forces to draw on for explanation?

Fusion is magic? That's a novel argument.

Ziggurat · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
and your thesis is wrong...next...

Except it isn't. You can't actually give a reason for why, other than that it offends your sensibilities. But your sensibilities are founded on ignorance.

cev08241971 · Dec 5, 2010

yes rock can become charged

dasmiller said:
So . . . it's a plasma rock? Do we have laboratory confirmation of such a thing?

If you're asking me is there experimental verification that rock can become ionized (charged, plasma), then yes, there is abundant experimental verification of that. For example when lightning strikes rock. Experiments done by C.J. Ransom have shown this effect can be reproduced readily in the lab.

Tubbythin · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
It's interesting you bring up "neutrino flux", another nail in the coffin of stellar fusion. The "observed neutrino flux" is a third of what's predicted by stellar fusionists, and no attempt is made to rule out other causes of these supposed "neutrinos" (which only last for fractions of a second, how do they get from the sun to Earth, that's an eight-minute trip).

Stunning. Giving it the the Billy Big Balls about how everyone is an idiot and clearly the fusion model is wrong when in fact you haven't even the faintest clue what you are talking about. The observed electron neutrino flux was previously measured to be about a third what was expected. Then they measured neutrino oscillations from multiple sources: the Sun, the atmosphere, nuclear reactors and now in "home-made" beams. All of them show that neutrino oscillate and now the numbers match up very very well with what is expected. And no, they don't only last a fraction of a second. They are completely stable. They oscillate in flavour because the mass eigenstates are not the same as the flavour eigenstates (something similar was observed with Kaons in about the 1960's), but they do not decay.

People who cite this "neutrino evidence" clearly don't even understand what a "neutrino" is, it's a transient side effect, like a flash or a bang from an explosion.

It is quite clearly you that does not understand what a neutrino is.

Bombs aren't made of flashes and bangs, though, and the sun isn't made of fusion.

Of course it isn't made of fusion. That doesn't even make any grammatical sense.

Again, I've seen no indication that evidence in any way plays a part in what you believe or conclude or try to contradict, so why should that change. You are going to "conclude" what you already believe, despite any evidence to the contrary. That's not science, that's religion, basically.

Says the person who's been giving it the lip for the last two pages but it turns out doesn't understand Maxwell's equations, the difference between cosmology and astronomy, or apparently, the very model he's telling us is a load of rubbish.

Tubbythin · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
Excuse me? What is it you think I don't understand? What is the distinction between cosmology and astronomy that you think I don't understand? I find this post of your to be banal and pointless (in other words spam).

You clearly seemed to think that an electric Sun model would have some bearing on cosmology. That means you don't know the difference between astronomy and cosmology.

Tubbythin · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
If you're asking me is there experimental verification that rock can become ionized (charged, plasma), then yes, there is abundant experimental verification of that. For example when lightning strikes rock. Experiments done by C.J. Ransom have shown this effect can be reproduced readily in the lab.

If a rock is turned into a plasma then it isn't a rock anymore is it? Or can we add states of matter the list of things you make wild proclamations about whilst being completely ignorant of too?

Ziggurat · Dec 5, 2010

cev08241971 said:
A "neutrino" is just "noise" produced by certain nuclear reactions.

Nope. It is a particle whose existence is required by conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum, and which has been detected.

That "neutrinos" even come from the sun in the first place is not evidence that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion.

Actually, it pretty much is.

Such sustained fusion has never been demonstrated in the lab

So? If we could sustain pressures as high as the core of the sun and weren't able to sustain fusion, that might be worth worrying about. But since we can only create such high pressures temporarily, that's rather to be expected.

so whether or not it would produce "neutrino flux" is utterly hypothetical.

Except, of course, that it's not.

They do make "neutrinos" at the Large Hadron Collider, though. Do they use fusion to do it or do they use electricity and magnets? The safe money is on electricity and magnets, unless they're lying to us.

You really don't know what they're doing, or how they do it, do you?

Neutrinos get generated through nuclear reactions. Once can create nuclear reactions through a variety of mechanisms, including electromagnetically-powered particle accelerators, but it's not the only way.

This claim is demonstrably false, and is based solely on hypothetical sustained fusion reactions that (for some strange reason) we can't reproduce.

It's not strange at all. We can't contain the necessary pressure, for rather obvious reasons. No mystery at all. The fact that you think it's strange just reveals your own ignorance.

While the sun most certainly contains the elements you list, it also contains many others, such as silicon and metals. (rock)

What, you think metals and silicon can only exist as solids?

Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

Banned

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Free Barbarian on The Land

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Just the right amount of cowbell

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing