Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Do you accept Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma? All I want is a simple "yes" or a simple "no". Is that really too much to ask you for?
Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)
- Thread starter Michael Mozina
- Start date
- Status
Do you accept Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma? All I want is a simple "yes" or a simple "no". Is that really too much to ask you for?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
GM, you keep dodging my other related question:
Did you read Alfven's exploding double layer paper, yes or no? If so, where is the flaw in that paper?
Did you read Alfven's exploding double layer paper, yes or no? If so, where is the flaw in that paper?
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
I have not seen any evidence that would make me believe any electric Sun crackpot actually understands Peratt's comments, and until that occurs, the question is moot. Now if there is some specific part of post #405 or post #1105 that isn't clear, let me know and I'll try to clarify them.
It seems like a good time to follow up on this...
The claim is that this electric Sun nonsense is actually Birkeland's or Alfvén's or Bruce's "model". Where do they specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? What were their thoughts on how nuclear fusion powered the Sun and how did they fit that into the idea that solar flares are or are caused by electrical discharges? I'm particularly interested in how Birkeland felt about nuclear fusion being one of the two alleged power sources for the Sun and specifically where he mentioned it.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
That is not a "yes" or "no". Try again.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Argument by dishonestly attempting to shift the burden of proof is, as always, noted.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
You asked for evidence. I provided you with that evidence in the form of a published paper which you never responded to. You ignored it. Since you showed no flaws in that work, the only "dishonest" attempt at shifting the burden is being done by you. You can't just *DENY* and *IGNORE* the evidence you don't like.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
No he did not! Never once did he write about "inflation". No formula in Einstein's original equations includes any reference to the term "dark energy".
It's dishonest to shove a bunch of "magic invisible stuff" into a lambda symbol in a GR formula and still call it "General Relativity". It should at *LEAST* come with acknowledgment that GR is in no way dependent upon "inflation", or "dark/invisible/magical/make believe" anything.
Last edited:
But that is largely semantics.
It is pretty dishonest to not only say people are doing what they are not but, moreover, to put it as a quotation when no such quotation was ever made.
Why?
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
The topic is "Electric Sun Theory". The claim has been made that this electric Sun silliness is actually Birkeland's, Alfvén's, and/or Bruce's "model", or perhaps some bastardized conglomeration of their alleged models. Where did those guys specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and what amount that comes from outside as alluded to in this post?...
What were Birkeland, Alfvén, and Bruce's thoughts on nuclear fusion and how it powered the Sun? How did that fit their idea that solar flares and CMEs are caused by electrical discharges? I'm particularly interested in how Birkeland felt about nuclear fusion being one of the two alleged power sources for the Sun and specifically where he discussed the matter.
Or is the electric Sun cranks' claim that they are just presenting Birkeland, Alfvén, and Bruce's "model" just another lie?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
No, it's about physics. You cannot *physically* demonstrate that "dark energy" has any effect on objects with mass. It is therefore irrational to expect me to let you stuff your invisible friend into *any* part of a GR formula.
Oh please. The whole mainstream cosmology theory, 96 percent of which is "make believe", gains any small legitimacy it gets based on stuffing invisible friends into a GR formula. It would be like stuffing magic into Maxwell's equations to attempt to gain some sense of legitimacy from that mathematical mumbo-jumbo. The moment I ask to see some *physical* demonstration that dark energy has any effect on mass in a controlled experiment, the whole thing comes crashing down like a house of cards.
I really should not have to answer that question for you IMO. What's the difference between science and religion?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Yes, but unfortunately you are not interested in discussing "electrical discharges" in a plasma, so what exactly is there for you to discuss in this thread? Do you accept Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma? All I want is a simple "yes" or a simple "no". I also want you to point out the flaw in Alfven's double layer paper for us since it is directly related to Peratt's definition of an "electrical discharge".
Last edited:
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
I'm not making a claim that the Sun is powered by electricity. I'm not making a claim the electrical discharges cause CMEs and solar flares. The burden of responsibility for supporting those cockamamie claims is not mine, and it is a dishonest argument to attempt to shift the burden of proof. We learn that in grade school science class.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Ya, and we learn all about denial in college too. Yes or no do you agree with Peratt's *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge in a plasma?
If dark energy is just the cosmological constant then, by definition, its already in GR. As far as I'm aware, everything we know about dark energy is consistent with this possibility.
No, see above. And you're derailing the thread.
No. See above.
Indeed it does (your argument that is), because you don't know what a controlled experiment is.
You wouldn't have been asked it if you hadn't but another ridiculous comment about magic in.
First and foremost (though its not the only thing), science is quantitative
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
The operative word in that sentence is *IF*. Show me that "dark energy" has the potential to be that constant in a controlled test and I'll be happy to entertain that concept.
So *IF* God energy is that same cosmological constant, then, by definition, it too is already in GR. I'm afraid that logic simply doesn't fly unless and until you can show that the thing being stuffed into that lambda symbol A) exists and B) has some tangible effect on matter.
The problem is that *ANY LABEL* would be equally consistent.
Darn it. You're right about that.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
As has been said countless times, it's dishonest of you to pretend we have altered Einstein's equations in any way.
Albert Einstein inserted the lambda term into his field equations. I don't know whether Einstein then knew that his lambda term was equivalent to a universal but non-electromagnetic (hence "dark") form of energy, but that fact was pointed out by his colleague Hermann Weyl within four years of Einstein's paper.
You are, in effect, accusing Albert Einstein of dishonesty. The dishonesty, however, is yours and yours alone.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I didn't claim you altered them, I claimed you *ABUSED* them to the point of absurdity.
Did I deny that?
Where in any of his writings did Einstein use the term "dark energy" in reference to lambda?
Pfft. Your strawman is the only thing that is "dishonest". It's also ironic.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Can we please stay on topic in this thread?
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
I've already plainly and clearly stated that no electric Sun crackpot appears to actually understand what Peratt meant in anything he wrote. Given the vast amounts of evidence that such a lack of understanding exists, I surely won't say I agree with what any electric Sun crackpot believes Peratt wrote. I've also made it very clear that until there is some evidence that the electric Sun cranks do understand Peratt (or Alfvén of Birkeland or Bruce or...), it is near futile to try to explain to them what those scientists meant.
Oh, and as far as an electrical discharges in a plasma... Plasma is a conductor. For an electrical discharge to occur there must be an insulator, or more precisely a dielectric medium, and the insulating properties of that medium must breakdown to the extent that it allows the passage of current. Again, plasma is a conductor not a dielectric medium, so regardless of argument by tantrum, badgering, taunting, or lying, regardless of any freestyle application of asterisks, upper case, or punctuation, standard physics supports the position that an electrical discharge won't occur in a plasma.
Don't forget this...
Where did Birkeland, Alfvén, and Bruce specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and what amount comes from outside? What were their thoughts on nuclear fusion and how it powered the Sun? How did that fit their idea that solar flares and CMEs are caused by electrical discharges? How did Birkeland feel about nuclear fusion being one of the two alleged power sources for the Sun and specifically where did he discuss the matter?
Or can we take the continued ignorance to mean the electric Sun cranks aren't really simply describing Birkeland, Alfvén, and Bruce's "model", and are in fact trying to describe one of their own?
Semantics.
It is probably the simplest explanation of the observed acceleration since it doesn't really involve changing anything other than a free parameter
What a load of gobbledegook. If you give a scientific concept a stupid name does it change the validity or otherwise of the concept? Do I really need to answer that?
Huh? The cosmological constant is a free parameter. If we measure it to be non-zero then it is non-zero.
And if it exists it has an effect on matter. If doesn't have an effect on matter then it can't exist. Bit like the song about my hat with three corners (if you know that one).
Your arguing semantics. Nothing more.
Should maybe take this back to one of the many threads on cosmology.Darn it. You're right about that.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,216
Stop playing the fool. The most likely possibility at the time, which has since been confirmed, is that the neutrino model was wrong, not that stellar core fusion was. Why? Well, fusion was well understood, but neutrinos weren't.
Um yes, it does.
Birkeland's model was a brass sphere with an electromagnet inside, pwered by an external battery, and placed in a chamber surrounded by gas.
If you think that's a scale model for the sun, you're delusional.
So the hell what? We're not talking about Chapman, or the aurora. We're talking about what powered the sun. And unless your contention is that there's a giant battery floating out there, unseen, with invisible wires (made of dark matter, perhaps?) snaking into the sun's innards, then there's no way in hell one can take Birkeland's Terrella as a scale model for the sun.
If so, it would be so trivially easy to prove it's a lie. And yet, you never do. If you are not ignorant of math, I must conclude that you want us to believe so.
Tell me, Michael: did Alfven think core fusion doesn't power the sun? Did Alfven think that the sun had a solid crust?
Indeed, who does care about you?
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
Dark Energy and Empirical Science IX
Now, if Mozina wants to "stay on topic" he is welcome to respond to this post appropriately on another thread, where it will be "on topic". But of course he is equally welcome to respond in this thread, I don't really care. But in that case don't complain to me about going "off topic", since I am not the one who asked the "off topic" question in the first place.
This does put one in a bit of a quandary. Mozina wants an answer to his off topic question, and yet asks to stay on topic. So I will simply refer the interested reader or lurker to some of my earlier posts: Dark Energy and Empirical Science VII (20 Sep 2010); Empirical Evidence for Dark Energy V (7 Sep 2010); Dark Energy and Empirical Science VI (31 Aug 2010) and other posts referenced therein. It has in fact been demonstrated with proper scientific validity that dark energy is, as observed, most consistent with the cosmological constant in Einstein's equations. However, since Mozina has explicitly rejected science as a valid tool of inquiry, his request for a "controlled test" is at best a sham.
Now, if Mozina wants to "stay on topic" he is welcome to respond to this post appropriately on another thread, where it will be "on topic". But of course he is equally welcome to respond in this thread, I don't really care. But in that case don't complain to me about going "off topic", since I am not the one who asked the "off topic" question in the first place.
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,296
I wonder why I put so many posts here on JREF with real discsussions of scientific papers with math etc. and the only thing MM seems to be interested in is discussing semantics or pointing to "look at the paper" without giving the appropriate link to the paper.
So, let's go to Alfvén's Key Note presentation at the "Double Layers in Astrophysics" conference in 1987 (unfortunately, I had not started my PhD research yet, so I did not attend this conference).
On the creation of double layers:
The some discussion about rectifiers and diodes, about what can happen to both sides of the double layer. And then the flare:
And then:
Now, what Alfvén did not take into account in his ideas is the fact that the exiting beams from a strong (relativistic) double layer will also heat up the ambient plasma. I have a doubt about the notion of "moving away cathode and anode slabs" as discussed in the key note address, because I think that before that happens, the Bohm criterion for the DL has already been violated and the DL disappears as discussed in this paper.
Carlqvist (1969), in section 7 of the paper, works as an engineer, when discussing the magnetic loops on the Sun. He starts with the current that flows in the loop and from that derives the potential, assuming that there is a critical current flowing in the tube:
[latex]i_c = e n \left[ \frac{k_B T_i}{m_e} \right]^{1/2}[/latex]
but that is okay, as he wants a double layer to be formed in the loop. Then Carlqvist continues:
So the stored magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy of the particles and the twisted loop is straightened out. The double layer thus unwinds the flux tube. (A better description is given by Raadu, which I mentioned in a previous post, yesterday).
Then Carlqvist discusses the diffusion time of the magnetic field, which for such a loop is ~105 seconds, 2 orders of magnitude higher than the energy release time. Thus "the energy release should be intimitely coupled with a rotational motion of the filamentary plasma." And the velocity at which this all can take place is limited by the Alfven velocity.
Then Carlqvist makes some estimations on the rate at which all this can happen and shows that this process is (under some assumptions) well in agreement with the observed time scales (Equations 11 through 14). There is talk about "the explosive phase" of the flare, on page 388, but with that explosion the rapid phase of about 100 seconds is meant.
So, no exploding double layers on the Sun, as shown in a paper referred to by Alfven. And the problem lies in the fact that the mercury rectifyer is just an analog, but not the real thing, plus the fact that the inductance of such an enormous loop will wreak havoc with a real current interruption. Combine that with the fact of partially neutralized currents for these loops (not present in a rectifyer), it gets more and more difficult to get a real "explosion" of a double layer on the Sun as one might see in the lab.
However, I am open for a further detailed discussion with links and quotes of the appropriate papers and further calculations.
And please, peeps, let's leave dark matter, Albert and other cosmic blah blah it their appropriate threads.
So, let's go to Alfvén's Key Note presentation at the "Double Layers in Astrophysics" conference in 1987 (unfortunately, I had not started my PhD research yet, so I did not attend this conference).
On the creation of double layers:
Alfvén said:
The some discussion about rectifiers and diodes, about what can happen to both sides of the double layer. And then the flare:
And then:
Now, what Alfvén did not take into account in his ideas is the fact that the exiting beams from a strong (relativistic) double layer will also heat up the ambient plasma. I have a doubt about the notion of "moving away cathode and anode slabs" as discussed in the key note address, because I think that before that happens, the Bohm criterion for the DL has already been violated and the DL disappears as discussed in this paper.
Carlqvist (1969), in section 7 of the paper, works as an engineer, when discussing the magnetic loops on the Sun. He starts with the current that flows in the loop and from that derives the potential, assuming that there is a critical current flowing in the tube:
[latex]i_c = e n \left[ \frac{k_B T_i}{m_e} \right]^{1/2}[/latex]
but that is okay, as he wants a double layer to be formed in the loop. Then Carlqvist continues:
Carlqvist said:
So the stored magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy of the particles and the twisted loop is straightened out. The double layer thus unwinds the flux tube. (A better description is given by Raadu, which I mentioned in a previous post, yesterday).
Then Carlqvist discusses the diffusion time of the magnetic field, which for such a loop is ~105 seconds, 2 orders of magnitude higher than the energy release time. Thus "the energy release should be intimitely coupled with a rotational motion of the filamentary plasma." And the velocity at which this all can take place is limited by the Alfven velocity.
Then Carlqvist makes some estimations on the rate at which all this can happen and shows that this process is (under some assumptions) well in agreement with the observed time scales (Equations 11 through 14). There is talk about "the explosive phase" of the flare, on page 388, but with that explosion the rapid phase of about 100 seconds is meant.
So, no exploding double layers on the Sun, as shown in a paper referred to by Alfven. And the problem lies in the fact that the mercury rectifyer is just an analog, but not the real thing, plus the fact that the inductance of such an enormous loop will wreak havoc with a real current interruption. Combine that with the fact of partially neutralized currents for these loops (not present in a rectifyer), it gets more and more difficult to get a real "explosion" of a double layer on the Sun as one might see in the lab.
However, I am open for a further detailed discussion with links and quotes of the appropriate papers and further calculations.
And please, peeps, let's leave dark matter, Albert and other cosmic blah blah it their appropriate threads.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I would hope it's because you have a genuine scientific curiosity in the topic. Since you seem to be the only other individual in the discussion that has actually read the appropriate materials, I certainly appreciate it.
Alright, I probably deserved the first chastisement but frankly I'm getting tired of posting the same links over and over again only to have them pretty much ignored by everyone except you.
Um, I'm not sure if that's actually a valid criticism since he talks about noise and particle collisions and the heat produced by currents in much of his work. He even notes the different temperatures between electron temperatures and ion temperatures and how they can vary by whole orders of magnitude.
You'll have to give me some time to checkout your link a bit before I can actually comment on it. It's the busy time of the year for me at work so you'll need to be a bit patient with me. It may have to wait until after working hours.
Before we go further, do you have any "problem" with the loop being treated as a "circuit" by Carlqvist and Alfven? Do you agree or disagree with Peratt's definition of an "electrical discharge" in a plasma?
That kinetic energy transfer would properly be called "induction" would it not?
So since it's "well in agreement" with observations, and it's quantified, do you have any actual "problem" with Carlqvist's approach?
If so, please be a bit more specific for me.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
FYI.....
This week, and next month are typically the busiest times of the year for our company. I may be a bit preoccupied at work for a bit, so don't take it personally if I'm slow in responding for awhile.
This week, and next month are typically the busiest times of the year for our company. I may be a bit preoccupied at work for a bit, so don't take it personally if I'm slow in responding for awhile.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Most of your convoluted response wasn't even worth responding to, but this point was worth a response. I know you don't understand this, but your claims *DO NOT* apply to plasma. Current carrying plasmas can reach 'critical' conditions that create explosive, induction driven events. The 'breakdown" occurs inside the double layer and the magnetic energy is released into the charged particles. It's called *INDUCTION*.
Not all plasmas conduct equally and a "discharge" can technically *ONLY* happen in a "conductor". Your whole argument about it being a "conductor" is bogus. So what? Not all the ions are *fully ionized*. Not all the atoms are necessarily even in plasma form. They could be gases or liquids in the "dusty" plasma. Electrons simply take the path of least resistance that path (electron/ion flow) can vary over time.
FYI, your continued reliance on loaded terms like "crank" and "crackpot" only make you look foolish at this point, particularly since you're avoiding the entire circuit discussion since you never read the materials and you therefore have nothing intelligent to say about the TOPIC.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Actually what I want is for you to conclude that my personal math skills are irrelevant to the discussion. GR theory doesn't rise or fall on my personal math skills. QM doesn't suddenly become a useless branch of science the moment the maths become beyond my personal understanding. PC theory is unaffected by my personal math skill set. Why in the world does it matter to you what maths I do for you?
Since I'm busy at work I'll just skip the ridiculous stuff if you don't mind.
My impression is that Alfven used a standard solar theory for the most part.
If you don't care about me, you folks really should stop fixating on my personal math skills.
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,296
Yes there is noise, that shows up if you measure the DL in the lab, fluctuations of the voltage etc.
However, Alfvén does not take into account the heating of the ambient plasma in his papers. He discusses that the accelerated particles impact the anode/cathode layer and "push them back" of which I am not sure if that happens.
I have often quoted that paper of mine in this an other threads. Apparently you did not think it was worth your time.
I have never, ever, had a problem (whether with or without "" marks, can you please stop with that irritation behaviour, why would problem warrant a ""?) with solar loops as a circuit, as you could have figured out [http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/...ole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf]from another paper of mine.[/url]
Peratt's definition of discharge as a quick release of magnetic or electric stored energy is a bit too loose for my taste, but is workable when the next sentences (e.g. about the break down of the medium) is also taken into account.
Not that this has anything to do with the discussion about Alfven and Carlqvist that I gave. Discuss the topic, do not step aside with questions that I have already answered several times here.
No, it would not. Induction is a different process. Read the Carlqvist paper:
Carlqvist said:
A current flowing across a potential drop dissipates energy at a rate I U, and it can either be a battery or a load, depending on the sign of the product. In this case it is a load, the particles are accelerated by the electric field (along the magnetic field) the currents change because of that and the twisted field that had the energy stored is released.
Induction is the creation of an electric field through the change of a magnetic field (like in an induction stove). However, in this model of Carlqvist, there is already a voltage drop (in the DL as he assumes the critical current density). This voltage does not change in the process, however, the magnetic field gets unwound. If it would have been induction, then Carlqvist would certainly have called it that in the paper.
I have no problem, per se, with the paper by Carlqvist, unfortunately he does not discuss the interaction of the exiting beams with the ambient plasma, limiting the life time of the DL.
However, I discussed this to show that the DL does not explode, as it is basically impossible (IMHO) to actually interrupt the current in a solar loop.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
When an argument is a lie, it is invalid. I will continue to point out the invalid arguments of the electric Sun crackpots, and the following comment is another of these lies...
An electrical discharge requires the breakdown of a dielectric medium, which in many respects is the opposite of a conductor. An electrical discharge does not occur within a conductor. Now if the quote marks around "discharge" and "conductor" indicate those terms carry some meaning not already defined, then that is another dishonest argument, another lie.
The topic is the electric Sun conjecture. The arguments presented to attempt to support that conjecture do not support it. I've already made it clear that there is no reason to indulge the crackpots' desire to talk all sciency until and unless they can actually demonstrate that they understand the science being discussed. There isn't any evidence yet that any such understanding exists. However, pointing out the lies, logical fallacies, and other invalid arguments is on topic.
Oh, and as far as exposing the lies... The crackpots' claims that they are simply presenting Alfvén's or Birkeland's or Bruce's "model" is demonstrably untrue. And every time it gets used as an argument to avoid taking responsibility for supporting the electric Sun proponents' own conjecture, it will continue to be untrue.
An electrical discharge requires the breakdown of a dielectric medium, which in many respects is the opposite of a conductor. An electrical discharge does not occur within a conductor. Now if the quote marks around "discharge" and "conductor" indicate those terms carry some meaning not already defined, then that is another dishonest argument, another lie.
The topic is the electric Sun conjecture. The arguments presented to attempt to support that conjecture do not support it. I've already made it clear that there is no reason to indulge the crackpots' desire to talk all sciency until and unless they can actually demonstrate that they understand the science being discussed. There isn't any evidence yet that any such understanding exists. However, pointing out the lies, logical fallacies, and other invalid arguments is on topic.
Oh, and as far as exposing the lies... The crackpots' claims that they are simply presenting Alfvén's or Birkeland's or Bruce's "model" is demonstrably untrue. And every time it gets used as an argument to avoid taking responsibility for supporting the electric Sun proponents' own conjecture, it will continue to be untrue.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Point noted. According to his definition the rapid release of stored magnetic field energy via "magnetic reconnection" would also produce a "discharge" would it not?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
FYI, you are right, I have read your previous paper. I just had not clicked on the link during my response. Hang in there. Your post is next.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Not inside of an existing plasma! There *MAY* be some *additional* ionization of elements that occurs *LOCALLY* as a result *OF* the electrical discharge, but there is no such requirement of a dialectic breakdown inside of a preexisting plasma!
That is a *FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED STATEMENT*. Please explain this image for me!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
Electric Sun & Solar Neutrinos I
Behold the following exchange ...
This exchange of comments clearly outlines Mozina's very weak understanding of what science really is and how it should be done; I don't mean just solar physics in particular, but rather the deeper concept of science in general, an important distinction. Just consider the logic. Suppose we have an hypothesis or a theory about something in science, that we test out idea by some experiment or observation, and that the results of our test are contrary to the prediction(s) of the hypothesis or theory. What are the logical consequences of this fact? Let us list the logical possibilities:
At this point we need to get out our intellectual magnifying glass and go beyond general science to the specific physics of the theory in question. How does it work? Let us once again list the key points:
While the standard solar model was being run through the theoretical & observational verification process, so was the physics of neutrinos being equally verified. With this in mind, we must be aware (as were of course the physicists involved in this process) that it had already been predicted by quantum physics that neutrinos could "oscillate", meaning change from one type to another (the three types of neutrino are electron, tau & muon; solar neutrino detection experiments up to this time were able to detect only electron neutrinos). This is the Mikheyev - Smirnov - Wolfenstein (MSW) effect (Wolfenstein, 1978; Mikheyev & Smirnov, 1986 and citations thereto).
So a theoretical solution to the problem existed early on: The solar electron neutrinos could oscillate and turn into tau or muon neutrinos while on their way from the point where they were created in a nuclear reaction to the point where only the now reduced number of electron neutrinos could be sampled and recorded. Therefore it remained to test this hypothesis by designing experiments sensitive to all 3 neutrino types, as opposed to only the electron type. This was done and it was determined that the total flux of neutrinos observed was equal to the total flux of electron neutrinos predicted from the Sun (see, e.g., Ahmad, et al., 2001; Ahmad, et al., 2002 and citations thereto). Furthermore, entirely ground based experiments have shown the same effect, the disappearance of electron neutrinos by oscillation from an Earth based neutrino beam (e.g., Araki, et al., 2005; Fogli, et al., 2003). So the combined observations of both solar & terrestrial neutrinos are in mutual agreement on the scale of the neutrino oscillation effect. And for the serious nay-sayers, allow me to point out that we know the solar neutrinos are solar, not only because of the extremely narrow (and highly predictable) energy ranges, but also because the day-night asymmetry in neutrino counts is consistent with the motion of the Sun (neutrinos oscillate as they pass through the Earth; see, e.g., Smy, et al., 2004).
The current status of the solar neutrino problem is solved. We know exactly what is happening. We know that the astrophysical models for the internal structure of the Sun are as predicted. We know that the electron neutrinos emitted by the Sun are oscillating into other neutrino types within the sun, and within the Earth. We know that the total number of neutrinos counted (all three types) is equal to the total number of neutrinos predicted from the Sun (electron neutrinos only).
Now, one more comment to revisit ...
University teaching is another matter altogether, as the teaching is usually done by someone who is simultaneously involved in active research. But that means they are actively aware of the tasks I have outlined above. Would we, or should we, expect the original inconsistency to initiate a halt to teaching the standard model? Certainly not. There is no excuse for such a thing; you teach the standard model because it is well founded on well understood physics, but you also teach the inconsistency along with it. I was myself a student during the height of the solar neutrino problem and that's exactly what we did. In the absence of a definitive demonstration of where the problem lies, you teach the problem to the students who will then become scientists involved in the process I outlined above, to find the solution. You don't qualify people to take part in the process by leaving out large chunks of the knowledge they need.
Now, since Mozina seems not to dispute an internal, nuclear energy source for the Sun, this is perhaps less relevant to his ideas. But it is relevant to other electric Sun models we have seen, which dispute the standard model's internal, nuclear energy source for the Sun. It is just one more in a long list of good reasons to abandon any model that requires an external energy source for the Sun.
Behold the following exchange ...
This exchange of comments clearly outlines Mozina's very weak understanding of what science really is and how it should be done; I don't mean just solar physics in particular, but rather the deeper concept of science in general, an important distinction. Just consider the logic. Suppose we have an hypothesis or a theory about something in science, that we test out idea by some experiment or observation, and that the results of our test are contrary to the prediction(s) of the hypothesis or theory. What are the logical consequences of this fact? Let us list the logical possibilities:
- The hypothesis or theory is in error.
- The test is logically sound but poorly done, so that the data are in error.
- The test is not logically sound, therefore the data are inconsequential.
At this point we need to get out our intellectual magnifying glass and go beyond general science to the specific physics of the theory in question. How does it work? Let us once again list the key points:
- The deep solar core is hot enough to initiate nuclear fusion.
- The fusion reactions emit neutrinos.
- The neutrinos travel from the Sun to the Earth.
- The neutrinos pass through Earth based detectors.
- A predictable fraction of the neutrinos react with the detector (they are "detected").
- The detected neutrinos are counted.
- The count is either consistent or inconsistent with predictions of the theory.
While the standard solar model was being run through the theoretical & observational verification process, so was the physics of neutrinos being equally verified. With this in mind, we must be aware (as were of course the physicists involved in this process) that it had already been predicted by quantum physics that neutrinos could "oscillate", meaning change from one type to another (the three types of neutrino are electron, tau & muon; solar neutrino detection experiments up to this time were able to detect only electron neutrinos). This is the Mikheyev - Smirnov - Wolfenstein (MSW) effect (Wolfenstein, 1978; Mikheyev & Smirnov, 1986 and citations thereto).
So a theoretical solution to the problem existed early on: The solar electron neutrinos could oscillate and turn into tau or muon neutrinos while on their way from the point where they were created in a nuclear reaction to the point where only the now reduced number of electron neutrinos could be sampled and recorded. Therefore it remained to test this hypothesis by designing experiments sensitive to all 3 neutrino types, as opposed to only the electron type. This was done and it was determined that the total flux of neutrinos observed was equal to the total flux of electron neutrinos predicted from the Sun (see, e.g., Ahmad, et al., 2001; Ahmad, et al., 2002 and citations thereto). Furthermore, entirely ground based experiments have shown the same effect, the disappearance of electron neutrinos by oscillation from an Earth based neutrino beam (e.g., Araki, et al., 2005; Fogli, et al., 2003). So the combined observations of both solar & terrestrial neutrinos are in mutual agreement on the scale of the neutrino oscillation effect. And for the serious nay-sayers, allow me to point out that we know the solar neutrinos are solar, not only because of the extremely narrow (and highly predictable) energy ranges, but also because the day-night asymmetry in neutrino counts is consistent with the motion of the Sun (neutrinos oscillate as they pass through the Earth; see, e.g., Smy, et al., 2004).
The current status of the solar neutrino problem is solved. We know exactly what is happening. We know that the astrophysical models for the internal structure of the Sun are as predicted. We know that the electron neutrinos emitted by the Sun are oscillating into other neutrino types within the sun, and within the Earth. We know that the total number of neutrinos counted (all three types) is equal to the total number of neutrinos predicted from the Sun (electron neutrinos only).
Now, one more comment to revisit ...
In the United States, curricula for high school and below are fairly rigid and established by state law. Teachers are, for the most part far removed from the current state of topics they teach because they are under a heavy burden of teaching & bureaucratic tasks which keep them from doing much of anything else. Furthermore, textbooks, which have to pass a lengthy procedure of acceptance at the state level, on top of the time it takes to write them, are commonly years or even decades behind the current state of the subject (this is true across the board for most subjects). So the idea of any such thing happening for any subject, at the high school level, is highly impractical at best.
University teaching is another matter altogether, as the teaching is usually done by someone who is simultaneously involved in active research. But that means they are actively aware of the tasks I have outlined above. Would we, or should we, expect the original inconsistency to initiate a halt to teaching the standard model? Certainly not. There is no excuse for such a thing; you teach the standard model because it is well founded on well understood physics, but you also teach the inconsistency along with it. I was myself a student during the height of the solar neutrino problem and that's exactly what we did. In the absence of a definitive demonstration of where the problem lies, you teach the problem to the students who will then become scientists involved in the process I outlined above, to find the solution. You don't qualify people to take part in the process by leaving out large chunks of the knowledge they need.
Now, since Mozina seems not to dispute an internal, nuclear energy source for the Sun, this is perhaps less relevant to his ideas. But it is relevant to other electric Sun models we have seen, which dispute the standard model's internal, nuclear energy source for the Sun. It is just one more in a long list of good reasons to abandon any model that requires an external energy source for the Sun.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
That argument is a lie.
That argument is a lie.
That argument has nothing whatsoever to do with an electrical discharge within a plasma and is therefore a non sequitur and off topic.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Pure denial on your part. I posted Peratt's definition for you.
More denial.
And when your bluff is called, even more denial.
Strike three.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I think you missed the point entirely Tim. I would not expect you to toss out standard solar theory (or toss out particle physics theory either) the moment one or two "questions" or "observations" occurred that could not be adequately explained (at the moment). On the other hand, you folks seem to *insist* that any "unanswered issue" on anything related to a cathode solar theory or PC theory as a whole is a automatic falsification of the *ENTIRE* theory! See any contradiction there Tim?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,216
Because if you can't do any math, then we cannot have a meaningful conversation with any depth about physics.
In other words, your ideas about the sun are radically different from Alfven's. So why are you waving him around like a talisman, hoping to bludgeon us with his authority, when you have already discarded that authority when it comes to your own ideas? Do you not see the irony? Do you not recognize the double standard?
No, apparently you do not.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
In post 1139 I said, "I've already plainly and clearly stated that no electric Sun crackpot appears to actually understand what Peratt meant in anything he wrote." I haven't read anything between there and here that would make me change my mind.
There seems to be some very unusual use of simple English words and phrases here. Electric Sun cranks posting off topic non sequiturs isn't calling anyone's bluff. And others pointing out their lies isn't denial.
We're quickly moving towards 1200 posts in this thread, and we have yet to see any objective quantitative support for the screwball claim that electrical discharges are or cause CMEs and solar flares.
- Status