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

[Michael Mozina]

If a theory gets modified to fit the data, it's not the same theory anymore. The original version is falsified. The fact that a similar theory may match the data doesn't mean the theory was not falsifiable.

So was standard theory *immediately* falsified the moment its "predictions" about the number of electron neutrinos didn't match "observation", or was it given a "free pass" for awhile until they figured out why it didn't jive?

But "electric universe" ideas are largely unfalsifiable, because they're mostly so vague they're untestable.

Huh? Compared to your "dark" thingies? Please!

The few that are testable are mostly already falsified (for example, the 10 billion volt sun).

Er, how did you "falsify" Birkeland's figure exactly?

But you still haven't come to terms with that.

Evidently not. I fail to see how you falsified *ANY* internally powered electric sun concept.

Not so. The disparity between the total power output and the possible power available from electric sources is so many orders of magnitude that electric sources cannot contribute even a significant fraction to the total power output. Again, you'd know this if you actually looked at the numbers. But you avoid the numbers at all cost, in order to avoid confronting what's really a pretty obvious reality.

The only thing that *you* seem to be unwilling to "confront" is the fact that an "electric sun" can and might be powered by "fusion". Until you come to grips with that possibility, you will continue to post useless and meaningless maths that don't actually "falsify" *ALL* (like you claimed) electric sun theories.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That argument is, of course, another lie.

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent processes such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microwανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line.

The discharge region, or load, encompasses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiation (Figure 1 .2). On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electrostatic energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.

Which part in yellow do you not understand?

 

[GeeMack]

Before I go any further, I want to make sure we're clear on where I stand vs. where Alfven stands.

Alfvén doesn't stand anywhere. He's dead. Croaked. Dust. But there have been whispers from the electric Sun nutters that they don't have any theory of their own anyway. After all, they claim to only be trying to present Alfvén's theory, or Birkeland's theory, or Bruce's theory, or pretty much anyone else's theory that gets them off the hook for supporting their own crazy claims. Why should anyone care where someone stands who doesn't have a model of their own?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why should anyone care where someone stands who doesn't have a model of their own?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

I don't need to have my "own model" of GR anymore than I need to have my own model of QM or my own model of a cathode sun. The fact you're in hard core denial of their existence won't make any of these materials disappear.

 

[GeeMack]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

I don't need to have my "own model" of GR anymore than I need to have my own model of QM or my own model of a cathode sun. The fact you're in hard core denial of their existence won't make any of these materials disappear.

Birkeland is dead, too. And 1913 was a long time ago. But as to Birkeland and his crazy idea that the Sun was powered by fusion and electricity both...

I personally prefer an *internal* energy source based on what I observe in solar satellite images. It acts more like a cathode than a "unipolar inductor" IMO. That isn't to say that *no* energy comes from an external source.

Where does Birkeland specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? What were Birkeland's thoughts on how nuclear fusion powered the Sun and how did he fit that into the idea that solar flares are or are caused by electrical discharges? "I don't know," is an acceptable scientific answer. Mouthing off isn't.

 

[tusenfem]

Let's both be *really* careful that we don't stick words in each other's mouth's, and be sure you aren't confusing my position with Alfven's position. I don't believe there is any *physical* difference between what you're calling "magnetic reconnection" and "circuit reconnection". Alfven believed (and stated on numerous occasions) that MR theory was "pseudoscience". Are we both clear on the distinction between my position and Alfven?

So, when are we finally going to get the details of your circuit reconnection, the thing that Alfven would also call pseudoscience? I have only been asking this for about 3 years if no longer.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Evidently since you folks have a lot of math skills, you've decided to judge the value (and sanity actually) of all human beings based upon their personal math skills.

Wrong again. Your problems with math don't have anything to do with your value as a person, but they have a lot to do with the value of your posts in this subforum. Your inability to understand the distinction between your own value and the value of your posts in this subforum is not our fault.

Collectively you also tend to judge physics theories you don't like based on how some *amateur* (that you can ridicule) presents the material to you on some message board in cyberspace instead of taking a few months to properly educate yourselves to Alfven's own works, and Birkeland's written materials.

Yes, we should judge Hannes Alfvén and Kristian Birkeland by their own theories instead of judging them by your distortions of their theories. Both come off a lot better that way.

You're essentially laughing at Alfven and Birkeland, not me. Laugh all you want, but unless you have a Nobel Prize sitting on your bookshelf, you really at least should read the materials before passing judgement on them rather than laughing at mere amateurs in cyberspace in some bizarre attempt at personal ego gratification.

Now you're making an argument from false authority. Your false authority is your misunderstanding of what Alfvén and Birkeland wrote, coupled with whatever mistakes they actually did make without your help.

Unlike you, I understand the basics of electromagnetism and have the mathematical chops to evaluate the nonsense you allege your heroes have written. If your heroes actually wrote the nonsense you claim they wrote, then they were wrong---and yes, I am qualified to conclude that Maxwell's equations trump your allegations.

The are not just *MY* opinions. This is like saying *If* I could justify my opinions about QM to your personal satisfaction mathematically *then* (and only then) would QM be a legitimate form of "science".

Nope. QM is legitimate science regardless of any nonsense you may spout. Similarly, magnetic reconnection is a consequence of Maxwell's equations regardless of any nonsense you may spout.

Ya, but according to you I don't know squat about QM or GR either, but no scientific theory is rises or falls on my skills.

Agreed. You don't know anything about QM or GR, but that says nothing about either.

Please quote Dungey where he used the term "magnetic reconnection". I saw him discuss *discharges* that "reconnect".

Dungey spoke of magnetic field lines that reconnect, and showed what he meant using a figure that's essentially the same as the one in the current Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection^WP. At this point, you're trying to argue that the reconnection of Dungey's magnetic field lines has nothing to do with what we nowadays refer to as magnetic reconnection.

Your argument is purely semantic. If you understood Dungey's mathematics, you'd see that he's talking about magnetic reconnection.

Let's both be *really* careful that we don't stick words in each other's mouth's, and be sure you aren't confusing my position with Alfven's position. I don't believe there is any *physical* difference between what you're calling "magnetic reconnection" and "circuit reconnection". Alfven believed (and stated on numerous occasions) that MR theory was "pseudoscience". Are we both clear on the distinction between my position and Alfven?

Your position is nonsense, because magnetic reconnection can be demonstrated using a fixed circuit. (I have done the math and run the numbers myself. You haven't, because you can't.)

The position you attribute to Alfvén---that MR theory is "pseudoscience"---is nonsense, but I am aware that what you say Alfvén believed/wrote and what Alfvén actually believed/wrote are two different things. I am also aware that your only source for Alfvén's dismissal of MR as "pseudoscience" is an informal keynote address in which he is criticizing the uncritical use of a pedagogical concept he himself had popularized.

On the other hand, I know that some of Alfvén's written opinions with respect to cosmology were uninformed and incorrect. It is possible that Alfvén's opinions with respect to magnetic reconnection were just as wrong, but that's a little harder to believe because Alfvén knew a lot more about electromagnetism than he knew about cosmology. I suspect that Alfvén's condemnation of magnetic reconnection was intended as a condemnation of some particular theory about the interaction of magnetic reconnection with plasmas; he might have been wrong about that also (I'd have to ask tusenfem), but Alfvén could have been wrong about that without being as ignorant as you've been alleging him to be.

 

[Ziggurat]

So was standard theory *immediately* falsified the moment its "predictions" about the number of electron neutrinos didn't match "observation", or was it given a "free pass" for awhile until they figured out why it didn't jive?

The combination of the standard solar theory and the theory of neutrinos was falsified. The observation alone didn't tell us which was wrong, only that one was. Subsequent observations have revealed that our initial neutrino models were wrong.

The observation that the sun does not explode falsifies the combination of standard electromagnetism and the idea that the sun has a potential of 10 billion volts. So which is wrong, Michael? Is that EU model wrong, or is standard electromagnetism wrong? I know which way I'm betting.

I fail to see how you falsified *ANY* internally powered electric sun concept.

Of course not. I used math. And you... don't understand math.

The only thing that *you* seem to be unwilling to "confront" is the fact that an "electric sun" can and might be powered by "fusion".

First, that's not what Haig was talking about, and second, you have no model for how that fusion can happen.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, when are we finally going to get the details of your circuit reconnection, the thing that Alfven would also call pseudoscience? I have only been asking this for about 3 years if no longer.

Um, what *exactly* are you waiting for anyway? Alfven already explained "exploding" "double layers" for you several decades ago. Did you not read that paper?

Any sort of "reconnection" that might be happening inside of a plasma is explained in that paper. He simply prefers to explain it as an explosive double layer.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, we should judge Hannes Alfvén and Kristian Birkeland by their own theories instead of judging them by your distortions of their theories. Both come off a lot better that way.

But with the exception of T, *none* of you did! Worse yet, some of you evidently have no intention of *ever* reading his materials for yourselves. How sad is that?

Now you're making an argument from false authority. Your false authority is your misunderstanding of what Alfvén and Birkeland wrote, coupled with whatever mistakes they actually did make without your help.

So please point out the mistakes in any of the papers or books of Alfven that I have cited.

Unlike you, I understand the basics of electromagnetism and have the mathematical chops to evaluate the nonsense you allege your heroes have written. If your heroes actually wrote the nonsense you claim they wrote, then they were wrong---and yes, I am qualified to conclude that Maxwell's equations trump your allegations.

How are you more qualified to judge the application of Maxwell's equations in MHD theory than Hannes Alfven? Where's your Nobel on this specific topic anyway? What about Maxwell's equations did Alfven not understand? He'd certainly seen plenty of "reconnection' papers during his lifetime.

Nope. QM is legitimate science regardless of any nonsense you may spout. Similarly, magnetic reconnection is a consequence of Maxwell's equations regardless of any nonsense you may spout.

You still don't seem to get it. PC theory is also legitimate science, regardless of anything I might say. No amount of bashing unrelated individuals in cyberspace is going to change that fact.

Agreed. You don't know anything about QM or GR, but that says nothing about either.

So take the next logical step Mr. Spock. If my personal opinions and mathematical skills have nothing to do with any branches of "science", why haven't your read Alfven's book for yourself and picked out the actual "flaws" in his work? FYI, there are some flaws IMO, but they are not mathematical in nature.

Dungey spoke of magnetic field lines that reconnect,

He spoke of "discharges" that "reconnect"! Where did he say "magnetic reconnection"?

and showed what he meant using a figure that's essentially the same as the one in the current Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection^WP.

Alfven's exploding double layer looks like that same process Mr. Spock. It's an "intersection" of "discharges" through plasma according to Dungey.

At this point, you're trying to argue that the reconnection of Dungey's magnetic field lines has nothing to do with what we nowadays refer to as magnetic reconnection.

No, not at all. I'm saying they have *EVERYTHING* to do with what is today called "magnetic" reconnection, but it can also be seen as a "discharge" in plasma!

Your argument is purely semantic. If you understood Dungey's mathematics, you'd see that he's talking about magnetic reconnection.

No, actually *your* argument is purely 'semantic'. A particle collision in plasma is not "magnetic reconnection". Induction already has a proper scientific name too. What you're essentially doing is mislabeling a "discharge" as a "magnetic reconnection" event and Dungey clearly shows the connection better than any other author I've ever read, including Birn's paper that convinced me your talking about "circuit reconnection" many years ago.

Your position is nonsense, because magnetic reconnection can be demonstrated using a fixed circuit. (I have done the math and run the numbers myself. You haven't, because you can't.)

You don't seem to get it. I don't have any problem with anyone's "numbers". I have a "problem" with you mislabeling "induction" and "exploding double layers" as "magnetic reconnection". So did Alfven and he certainly could "run the numbers" just as well as you can.

The position you attribute to Alfvén---that MR theory is "pseudoscience"---is nonsense, but I am aware that what you say Alfvén believed/wrote and what Alfvén actually believed/wrote are two different things.

I have quoted him for you. Care to do me the same courtesy to support your position for us?

I am also aware that your only source for Alfvén's dismissal of MR as "pseudoscience" is an informal keynote address in which he is criticizing the uncritical use of a pedagogical concept he himself had popularized.

Ya, and it was late in his life and long after he'd been exposed the Sweet and Parker's (and other) brands of 'reconnection' theory. He clearly explains in his paper from that same conference how it is *SUPPOSED* to be expressed and described mathematically. Did you find a mathematical flaw in his work Mr. Spock?

 

[GeeMack]

But with the exception of T, *none* of you did! Worse yet, some of you evidently have no intention of *ever* reading his materials for yourselves.

That argument is, of course, a lie.

How sad is that?

How sad, indeed.

I personally prefer an *internal* energy source based on what I observe in solar satellite images. It acts more like a cathode than a "unipolar inductor" IMO. That isn't to say that *no* energy comes from an external source.

Where does Birkeland specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? What were his thoughts on how nuclear fusion powered the Sun and how did he fit that into the idea that solar flares are or are caused by electrical discharges? "I don't know," is an acceptable scientific answer. Mouthing off isn't.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The combination of the standard solar theory and the theory of neutrinos was falsified. The observation alone didn't tell us which was wrong, only that one was. Subsequent observations have revealed that our initial neutrino models were wrong.

So the mainstream *immediately* stopped teaching the standard solar model the moment the neutrino problem was first noticed? Come on!

The observation that the sun does not explode falsifies the combination of standard electromagnetism and the idea that the sun has a potential of 10 billion volts.

Um, no, it doesn't demonstrate either of those things.

So which is wrong, Michael? Is that EU model wrong, or is standard electromagnetism wrong? I know which way I'm betting.

I'm betting on Birkeland who actually "tested" his ideas in a lab with real scales models. I know that your side bets on "pure math" all the time, just like Chapman did for decades. Chapman was still wrong about aurora and Birkeland was right. He wasn't a couch potato scientist like today's (and yesterday's brand) of "math only" physicists. I doubt any of you have actually sat down and read through his full set of experiments.

Of course not. I used math. And you... don't understand math.

That is an irrelevant lie that happens to make you feel better emotionally evidently. Alfven understood math better than any of you. Almost none of you have actually read it, and he had a Nobel prize in plasma physics! Who cares about me anyway?

First, that's not what Haig was talking about, and second, you have no model for how that fusion can happen.

Bruce's solar model was no different than the one your using in terms of the power supply!

 

[Michael Mozina]

That argument is, of course, a lie.

Care to pick out the mathematical error in *ANY* of the papers or books by Alfven that I have cited?

To quote you:

"I don't know," is an acceptable scientific answer. Mouthing off isn't.

 

[tusenfem]

Um, what *exactly* are you waiting for anyway? Alfven already explained "exploding" "double layers" for you several decades ago. Did you not read that paper?

Of course I read that paper. However, up to now no exploding double layers have been observed in nature nor in reconnection experiments. And an exploding double layer is no "circuit reconnection" because that is your idea, and not Alfvén's, so I am waiting for you, obviously.

Any sort of "reconnection" that might be happening inside of a plasma is explained in that paper. He simply prefers to explain it as an explosive double layer.

Let's see what is said about "exploding double layers" in Peratt (an easier access as one can easily obtain a pdf of the book)

Every circuit that contains an inductance L is intrinsically explosive . The inductive energy Eq.(3.39) can be tapped at any point of the circuit. Any interruption of the current I results in the transfer of the inductively stored energy to the point of interruption. By its nature, this point is most
often a double layer which then releases energy at a rate:

P = I φ_DL (5.28 )

where φ_DL is the voltage drop across the double layer. This energy is mainly used for accelerating charged particles, with a small percent released in the generation of noise . Secondary effects associated with the particle acceleration include localized heating and radiation.

(Eq.(3.39) is W_B = 0.5 L I², the magnetic energy in a circuit with current I and induction L)

So, what we see here is interruption of the current, so in the loop the current is stopped and that makes that the stored magnetic energy is released explosively.

Then let's go to Fig. 5.13 c on page 193, where we see a twisted loop with a double layer at the top. However, Peratt does not really do anything with this model (actually the Carlqvist 1976 model) and so we switch to Michael Raadu's paper Energy release in double layers where in section 5 it is explained how a double layer in a coronal loop can unwind the twisted flux tube. The total energy that is released is divided into the acceleration of the beams and the rotation of the bulk, and the rate is limited by the Alfvén speed. I will not go through the math, anyone can look at the paper, and I cannot copy/paste from this scanned article.

So no, I don't think that exploding double layers fly, nor that they describe *CIRCUIT RECONNECTION*.

 

[tusenfem]

But with the exception of T, *none* of you did! Worse yet, some of you evidently have no intention of *ever* reading his materials for yourselves. How sad is that?

Well, if anything, that should read, actually, *none* of us did!

 

[GeeMack]

Care to [...]

Dishonest argument by attempting to deflect the burden of proof noted.

So where does Birkeland specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? What were his thoughts on how nuclear fusion powered the Sun and how did he fit that into the idea that solar flares are or are caused by electrical discharges? "I don't know," is an acceptable scientific answer.

 

[GeeMack]

Bruce's solar model was no different than the one your using in terms of the power supply!

So where does Bruce specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? What were his thoughts on how nuclear fusion powered the Sun and how did he fit that into the idea that solar flares are or are caused by electrical discharges? And how does that square with Birkeland's "model" which was a Sun made of brass, hollow, and connected to the Universe by wires? "I don't know," is an acceptable scientific answer.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dishonest argument by attempting to deflect the burden of proof noted.

There's no shifting of anything. I have been presenting a steady stream of evidence, and you remain in hard core denial of that same evidence. What did Alfven mean by describing coronal loops as "circuits"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, if anything, that should read, actually, *none* of us did!

I own the book and I've read the book and I understand it. That is also true of Peratt's book (and definitions), which is more than I can say for most of the detractors around here. I've yet to see you pick out any flaws in Alfven's work. Care to?

This whole conversation is a little surreal since most of the participants haven't even read the materials and *none* of *US* has found any mathematical flaws in any of Alfven's papers or books.

 

[GeeMack]

There's no shifting of anything. There's me presenting evidence, and you in hard core denial of that same evidence. What did Alfven mean by describing coronal loops as "circuits"?

The uncivil personal attack is, as always, noted.

To stay on topic...

I personally prefer an *internal* energy source based on what I observe in solar satellite images. It acts more like a cathode than a "unipolar inductor" IMO. That isn't to say that *no* energy comes from an external source.

... the question was: Supposedly the electric Sun crackpots aren't presenting their own "model", but are simply trying to convince people that Birkeland's "model" was correct. So, where does Birkeland specify the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? What were his thoughts on how nuclear fusion powered the Sun and how did he fit that into the idea that solar flares are or are caused by electrical discharges?