Thunderbolts of the Gods

[DeiRenDopa]

sol invictus' reply (quoting me) "How would you describe the scope of the science (only physics?) you (we) could, or should or would, use?"

Physics, possibly some physical chemistry.

"What would you say are the objectives of such science (physics), for the purposes of our study?"

To understand the behavior of the sun - which was accomplished years ago, in large part. There are still a few aspects not completely understood (transport within the sun, the behavior of solar flares and sunspots), but for similar reasons we can't predict the weather here on earth very well either.

"What are the criteria for deciding what sorts of things are legitimate evidence (or data) for our study?"

Standard scientific method - repeatable measurements, controlled experimental technique, etc.

"What methods of analysis - including what logic - do you consider legitimate for our study?"

Again, standard science - you formulate a model (which must be a specific mathematical model capable of making numerical predictions) and test it against data.

In the case of the sun that's been going on for a long time, and the resulting model is quite accurate. It's also produced some amazing ancillary results - neutrino masses were predicted by John Bahcall long before they were measured, based on the solar model (which, if neutrinos were massless, predicts a flux of electron neutrinos higher than what is observed).

(url removed; I'm too new)
- - - - - end of quote - - - -

Thank you sol invictus.

What about others who've posted in the last day or so?

What say you, robinson?

Ziggurat?

iantresman?

Dancing David?

The Man?

Zeuzzz?

Here are the questions, with preamble, again:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Assuming that we - collectively - are studying the Sun, I would like to ask those who've actively contributed to this thread the following simple questions:

How would you describe the scope of the science (only physics?) you (we) could, or should or would, use?

What would you say are the objectives of such science (physics), for the purposes of our study?

What are the criteria for deciding what sorts of things are legitimate evidence (or data) for our study?

What methods of analysis - including what logic - do you consider legitimate for our study?

 

[sol invictus]

Maybe you should stop with the Ad Hominem comments and outline what your actual problems are with what i said?

OK:

Could eveyone please stop saying that everything is neutral.

No one said anyone of the kind. Evidently you didn't understand the comments which have been made.

Capacitance is a differential concept,

Sort of. And why are you bringing that up?

you can claim that anything is neutral if you choose your own parameters.

Wrong.

You could claim that a charged up anode is technically neutral if you include a mini atmosphere around that aswell to cancel out the charge.

Wrong. There's either a charged atmosphere around it or there isn't. You don't get to make one up.

But that would be a pointless thing to do, and is with the Earth.

Meaningless statement.

I repeat - learn some basic E&M.

 

[robinson]

What about others who've posted in the last day or so?

What say you, robinson?

It's not my field, so I am not qualified to answer any of the questions. I could venture the objective would be to predict events that could damage satellites, bring down power grids, or increase UV dangers. Things like that. Knowing in advance the dangers and risks would be a pragmatic approach to understanding the sun.

 

[Dancing David]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Assuming that we - collectively - are studying the Sun, I would like to ask those who've actively contributed to this thread the following simple questions:

How would you describe the scope of the science (only physics?) you (we) could, or should or would, use?

I would call that a moot point, it is not the name of the area of thought and hypothesis that matters but observation and predictions.

What would you say are the objectives of such science (physics), for the purposes of our study?

None except to make theories that predict the behavior of observations.

That and just looking at the stars and going wow.

What are the criteria for deciding what sorts of things are legitimate evidence (or data) for our study?

Evidence is evidence, i have seen some strange standards ebing applied if one assumes that the universe has equal laws in all places at all times, then some of the requirement some have sugegsted are rather foolish.

Evidence is what it is, the meaning of evidence is a matter of debate.

What methods of analysis - including what logic - do you consider legitimate for our study?

Hypothesis, thesis and observation.

Like the solar fusion which is theorised to power the sun, the other forces considered are not sufficient to explain the sun's radiation, they are usually not strong enough, vaious observations support the theory that stars are usually powered by fusion.

we do not need to recreate the conditions of the sun to say if the theory makes accurate predictions.

We have a theory it matches predictions, that says it is a usefull theory. Otherwise it gets scrapped or revised.

 

[robinson]

No one said anyone of the kind. Evidently you didn't understand the comments which have been made.

I think that may be the case. Let's try another approach. What examples of electromagnetism in space are there?

Where are there currents flowing? Is there any electricity or magnetism involved in a 100 million light year jet of highly charged particles? What is responsible for the energetic jets of plasma seen shooting out of galaxies, stars or whatever it is in the middle of a cluster?

What is the magnetic wind? The magnetic fields around the earth, the sun, Jupiter, Saturn? Around stars and galaxies? Is that not EM?

What do you call a flow of charged particles in space? What is the proper name for the electromagnetic energy connecting a moon to a planet? From the earth to the sun?

What about the sun? What energy is involved when the sun shoots out streams of highly energetic particles?

What do you consider the proper words to be used?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

It's not my field, so I am not qualified to answer any of the questions. I could venture the objective would be to predict events that could damage satellites, bring down power grids, or increase UV dangers. Things like that. Knowing in advance the dangers and risks would be a pragmatic approach to understanding the sun.

Thank you robinson.

What, then, is the basis you use to formulate questions and comments, on what others write?

For example, back in post #288, you wrote "I can identify a whole bunch of power sources"; what was the basis for your identification? How did you decide (what criteria did you use) whether any (or all, or some subset) had pertinence to the question of what powers the Sun?

This was in response to Ziggurat's post ("And there's no power source external to the sun which can be identified, and no reason to think that, even if it existed, that it would be pumping its energy into the sun."). I note that your comment (and following question) was not answered; if it had been, how would you have evaluated it?

Another example, from post #286: "You made a claim about something, I asked for evidence. Get used to it, this is a skeptics forum." This goes directly to one of my questions: What are the criteria for deciding what sorts of things are legitimate evidence (or data) for our study?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

(In response to "What would you say are the objectives of such science (physics), for the purposes of our study?")
To understand the behavior of the sun

For the purposes of our study, how do you decide what constitutes the Sun's 'behavior'?

For example, how pertinent are data from space probes such as Cluster (I can't put a link to the Cluster website yet, as I'm not up to 15 posts; Cluster takes direct measurements of various aspects of the plasma it is immersed in)? what about historical records on the numbers of visible sunspots? or what the researchers who write up their results call neutrinos, from various underground detectors? or the amount of helium-3 found in the lunar soil samples returned by various Apollo missions?

 

[robinson]

If you provide links to the post it would be much quicker for me to answer.

The power sources one I remember. Two sprung to mind without any effort.

As for post 286,

I like Arp , I think he is cool. I think his ideas are interesting but even more gnomish than the main stream.

And his use of statistics is appaling and uncontrolled.

Evidence? "And his use of statistics is appaling[sic] and uncontrolled". Evidence? Where does such a statement come from? Who said that? Why? Are there articles? Papers? I am interested, so I want to read the source material.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

"How would you describe the scope of the science (only physics?) you (we) could, or should or would, use?"

I would call that a moot point, it is not the name of the area of thought and hypothesis that matters but observation and predictions.

"What would you say are the objectives of such science (physics), for the purposes of our study?"

None except to make theories that predict the behavior of observations.

That and just looking at the stars and going wow.

(rest of post omitted, for now)

Thank you Dancing David.

May I ask the same question as I asked sol invictus?

For the purposes of our study, how do you decide what constitutes the Sun's 'behavior'?

For example, how pertinent are data from space probes such as Cluster (I can't put a link to the Cluster website yet, as I'm not up to 15 posts; Cluster takes direct measurements of various aspects of the plasma it is immersed in)? what about historical records on the numbers of visible sunspots? or what the researchers who write up their results call neutrinos, from various underground detectors? or the amount of helium-3 found in the lunar soil samples returned by various Apollo missions?

To what extent can - or should - 'observations' be distinguished from 'evidence'?

(to be continued)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

If you provide links to the post it would be much quicker for me to answer.

(rest of post omitted, for now)

I'd love to, and will certainly do so once my post count gets to 16!

Until then, the rules of this forum, enforced by the automated moderation software routines, permit me to write only very little beyond vanilla text. At least, that's how I understand the rules to be, and to work.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

(part of post omitted)

The power sources one I remember. Two sprung to mind without any effort.

(rest of post omitted, for now)

Thanks for the quick response, robinson.

How did you decide (what criteria did you use) whether either had (possible) pertinence to the question of what powers the Sun?

Myself, I can imagine many possible power sources that have little pertinence to what powers the Sun; for example, AAA batteries that I can buy in a shop, and the silicon-based solar panels that my neighbour uses to cut down his electricity bill.

 

[robinson]

Ah, my apologies, I forgot about the no links thing.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

(part of post omitted)

As for post 286,



Evidence? "And his use of statistics is appaling[sic] and uncontrolled". Evidence? Where does such a statement come from? Who said that? Why? Are there articles? Papers? I am interested, so I want to read the source material.

Thanks robinson, that seems pretty straight-forward.

What about posts here in this forum? For example, if I remember correctly, Ziggurat wrote a post showing that the Sun could not have a net charge in excess of about 100 Coulombs, and also be stable over time periods of minutes (or was it centuries? I couldn't find the post on a quick search). From your perspective, does Ziggurat's post - with its calculations and assumptions clearly laid out (I think) - constitute evidence of the claim he made?

 

[robinson]

From your perspective, does Ziggurat's post - with its calculations and assumptions clearly laid out (I think) - constitute evidence of the claim he made?

I have no idea. Really. One reason I don't comment on a lot of things, I just don't understand enough about it. I sniff around the links provided, read stuff, and end up more confused than ever. I tend to go with the mainstream, because how could almost everybody be wrong? But then some stuff turns out to be true, and almost everybody was wrong, so there you go.

 

[sol invictus]

I think that may be the case. Let's try another approach. What examples of electromagnetism in space are there?

Nearly every phenomenon we see in the universe is profoundly dependent on electromagnetic forces. All matter and all the radiation we've ever detected would be impossible without E&M. That's why every physicist and astrophysicist studies it starting from the very beginning of their education.

There are a few exceptions (to the rule that EM is important), and they mostly involve the dynamics of matter on very large scales. As has been repeatedly explained, matter is neutral on average. That means two large chunks of stuff some distance apart don't attract or repel each other very strongly (relative to their mass). On the the other hand, the gravitational attraction between them grows with their mass, and so very large and massive collections of stuff are much more strongly influenced by gravity than by E&M. When you get to something the size of a galaxy, there is no comparison - gravity wins by a huge, huge factor.

But for just about everything on sub-galactic scales E&M is crucial, and even on galactic scales there are some phenomena for which it's important. So there's no short answer to your questions - you need a theory, and you need to understand the theory and check that it agrees with observations.

 

[sol invictus]

For the purposes of our study, how do you decide what constitutes the Sun's 'behavior'?

For example, how pertinent are data from space probes such as Cluster (I can't put a link to the Cluster website yet, as I'm not up to 15 posts; Cluster takes direct measurements of various aspects of the plasma it is immersed in)? what about historical records on the numbers of visible sunspots? or what the researchers who write up their results call neutrinos, from various underground detectors? or the amount of helium-3 found in the lunar soil samples returned by various Apollo missions?

I don't know what "our" study is, so I can't answer that.

So far we've been mostly discussing an idea which fails completely at such a basic level that it's not necessary to consider any subtleties. If the sun would explode in seconds, it's not very important how much helium-3 there is in the lunar soil, is it?

You might be asking about problems with the standard solar model?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I have no idea. Really. One reason I don't comment on a lot of things, I just don't understand enough about it. I sniff around the links provided, read stuff, and end up more confused than ever. I tend to go with the mainstream, because how could almost everybody be wrong? But then some stuff turns out to be true, and almost everybody was wrong, so there you go.

So what do you do when there are two sets of source materials (both of which pass your tests for being legitimate evidence) which are in conflict?

For example, of direct pertinence to the question of what powers the Sun, there's BeAChooser's post (#177 in the Dark matter and Dark energy thread, in this section of the forum), which links to a webpage in electric-cosmos.org, and standard solar models (I'm sure sol invictus could provide any number of sources; a quick example might be found by Googling on "nobel neutrino bahcall" and you'll find material dated 28 April 2004, by John Bahcall, on the Nobel Prize (in physics) website, called "Solving the Mystery of the Missing Neutrinos").

Does the mere existence of conflicting, yet legitimate, sources (evidence) rule out any possibility of analysis, in your view? If not, then how do you go about determining which of the analyses is legitimate (let's assume, for now, that the two sources agree on what the observations are)?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I don't know what "our" study is, so I can't answer that.

So far we've been mostly discussing an idea which fails completely at such a basic level that it's not necessary to consider any subtleties. If the sun would explode in seconds, it's not very important how much helium-3 there is in the lunar soil, is it?

You might be asking about problems with the standard solar model?

This thread has wandered far and wide in terms of its contents.

The OP includes a quote that seems to claim that "the Thunderbolt Project" has a scope that encompasses all of astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology, as well as much of non-astronomical physics, archeology, and more.

Post #2 is where the scope seems to have been defined as 'what powers the Sun' ("Apparently the Sun is not powered by nuclear fusion in its core but because it is "connected to the electric circuitry of the galaxy," as 'proven' (in Thunderbolts' view) by the fact sunspots are cooler in their centre than outside (see here). It's a shame because that article begins with quite a nice summary of the development of solar physics, then makes outrageous claims without any supporting evidence, while showing a complete lack of understanding of solar structure. For comparison with reality (i.e. theories that are supported by experiment), here's a nice starting point. Let me know if you need detailed arguments. I quite like solar physics" - links and smilies omitted).

Starting with post #34, BeAChooser posted a great deal of material; posts #40 and #41 seem to outline the "Thunderbolts of the Gods" case ("a group of plasma cosmologists and electrical engineers who are claiming the standard fusion model of stars is just plain wrong ... that fusion is not what powers the sun. Their reason for claiming this is that the standard model astrophysicists are unable to logically explain the observed phenomena on and above the sun without resorting to nonsense like "magnetic reconnection". In fact, without such bogus physics, an interior fusion source for the energy emitted by the sun seems to directly contradict the observations." - from #40), followed by a set of questions in post #56, and a succinct invitation to discuss in post #57 ("Well let's discuss it here on this thread. I provided 14 posts summarizing the major arguments against mainstream thinking and what the Electric Universe proponents suggest instead. Care to take one of them and show where what I've written is "hand waving".").

The 'behaviour of the Sun' covered in BeAChooser's posts seems to include:
* what powers the Sun
* sunspots
* granulation
* solar flares
* the solar corona
* variation in x-ray output over time periods of days
* the solar wind.

Perhaps 'the behaviour of the Sun' could be summed up as all observations of the Sun and phenomena that seem to be directly related to the Sun? That'd cover all my examples (and much more of course), except, perhaps, the helium-3 in lunar soils.

Another meaning might be something like whatever predictions come from standard solar models (that you can actually test), or any other models (such as the Thunderbolt Project's 'electric Sun'?)? That might be consistent with what Dancing David wrote.

As a long-time, multi-post content contributor to this thread, what 'behaviour of the Sun' do you see as being pertinent, sol invictus?

 

[robinson]

So what do you do when there are two sets of source materials (both of which pass your tests for being legitimate evidence) which are in conflict?

What do I do? Sometimes I start a topic about it, but usually I do some more research, or ask in a topic already going. Or just blank it out of my mind completely, because who needs any more stress.

Does the mere existence of conflicting, yet legitimate, sources (evidence) rule out any possibility of analysis, in your view? If not, then how do you go about determining which of the analysis is legitimate (let's assume, for now, that the two sources agree on what the observations are)?

That is an extremely good question. (Which is code for "I have no clue on how to answer it").

On matters that actually effect me, I tend to discuss it in real life, with others also effected by the matter. For those intellectual issues which really don't matter, well, that is what th Internet is for!

In regards to the sun being powered by electric currents, I just can't imagine how that can be. How it could work. But the unsolved issues around the sun do make it an area of interest, in the philosophical sense.

I feel the same way about giant magnetic fields, charged particles, ions, solar wind, solar flares, ejections, coronal heating and x-rays shooting out of the sun's poles. There are more questions than answers when it comes to the sun.

I tend to agree with those pointing out electrons can't be flowing in, when everything else is flowing out. But then we get a link to ions drives and see that such a thing can occur, and everything goes back into more questions.


















Of course I don't even understand how an Ion drive works, much less if that paper is correct.

 

[Dancing David]

If you provide links to the post it would be much quicker for me to answer.

The power sources one I remember. Two sprung to mind without any effort.

As for post 286,



Evidence? "And his use of statistics is appaling[sic] and uncontrolled". Evidence? Where does such a statement come from? Who said that? Why? Are there articles? Papers? I am interested, so I want to read the source material.

Hi I am acquiring that list at home, but the argument goes like this and does not need articles to support it, bad ideas are still bad ideas.

If there is an alleged sample of QSOs that are within a certain arc radius of galactic cores that is cool, but because it is a statistical sort of beast that raises the following questions:

1. What is the proportion of QSOs at similar arc radius from non Arp catalog galaxies?
2. What is the proportion of QSOs at similar arc radius from random points in the sky?
3. What is the proportion of nonQSO galaxies at similar arc radius from the two areas in one and two? What then is the ratio of AGN to nonQSO galaxies?

The reasons for this are (I haven't studied the Poisson statistics yet so I could be way off base)
A. A claim is being made that there is a level of QSOs a certain arc radius within the center of Arp catalog objects.
B. It is standard methodology to measure the level of occurrence of similar objects around (in #1) similar situations IE non Arp galaxies, or random situations (as in #2). That way it can be determined if the correlation or statistic in A. is actually significant above the noise level from the other positions.
C. Number 3 comes from the suggestions that QSOs are Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) and therefore a proportion of QSO/AGN to nonQSO galaxies is important:
- If there ratio of nonQSO galaxies is similar to the ratio of QSO, this might suggest that QSOs are just background galaxies, especially if the ratio is the same as the proportion of AGN/nonQSO galaxies.

The question about appalling statistics is this, a correlation or relationship means nothing unless it is compared to the noise level or average level of incidence.

So if the prevalence of QSOs is similar in arc radius to other galaxies or random points it would indicate that there is no real significance.
If the prevalence of nonQSO galaxies is higher to Arp galaxies and non-Arp galaxies, then it can be established that the background ratio is similar for galaxies.
If the prevalence of QSOs matches the AGN to nonAGN ration then that might indicate that the incidence of QSOs in association with Arp objects just reflects the ratio of galaxies to Arp objects and that there is no special significance.

So in other words it is not meaningful to say that there is a relationship between QSOs and Arp galaxies unless you can establish that it rises above the normal incidence.


This way certain statistical errors can be avoided before the issue of causation is raised.

If you look at this picture here (a wonder to behold)

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080224.html

You will see that there all these galaxies that are in the picture, so the relevance of QSOs to nonArp galaxies and random points might be demonstrated. the ratio of AGN/non AGN galaxies would also help indicate other statictical levels of incidence.