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

[Michael Mozina]

Apparently my comments are not being understood. If there is some specific part of post #405 or post #1105 that isn't clear, please let me know and I'll try to reword them.

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]

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?

 

[GeeMack]

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?

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...

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 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]

I have not seen any evidence

That is not a "yes" or "no". Try again.

 

[GeeMack]

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?

Argument by dishonestly attempting to shift the burden of proof is, as always, noted.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Argument by dishonestly attempting to shift the burden of proof is, as always, noted.

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]

Albert Einstein did that.

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.

 

[Tubbythin]

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".

But that is largely semantics.

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 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.

It should at *LEAST* come with acknowledgment that GR is in no way dependent upon "inflation", or "dark/invisible/magical/make believe" anything.

Why?

 

[GeeMack]

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.

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?...

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.

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]

But that is largely semantics.

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.

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.

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.

Why?

I really should not have to answer that question for you IMO. What's the difference between science and religion?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The topic is "Electric Sun Theory".

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".

 

[GeeMack]

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".

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]

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.

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?

 

[Tubbythin]

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.

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.

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.

No, see above. And you're derailing the thread.

It would be like stuffing magic into Maxwell's equations to attempt to gain some sense of legitimacy from that mathematical mumbo-jumbo.

No. See above.

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.

Indeed it does (your argument that is), because you don't know what a controlled experiment is.

I really should not have to answer that question for you IMO.

You wouldn't have been asked it if you hadn't but another ridiculous comment about magic in.

What's the difference between science and religion?

First and foremost (though its not the only thing), science is quantitative

 

[Michael Mozina]

If dark energy is just the cosmological constant

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.

then, by definition, its already in GR.

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.

As far as I'm aware, everything we know about dark energy is consistent with this possibility.

The problem is that *ANY LABEL* would be equally consistent.

No, see above. And you're derailing the thread.

Darn it. You're right about that.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Albert Einstein did that.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Michael Mozina]

As has been said countless times, it's dishonest of you to pretend we have altered Einstein's equations in any way.

I didn't claim you altered them, I claimed you *ABUSED* them to the point of absurdity.

Albert Einstein inserted the lambda term into his field equations.

Did I deny that?

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.

Where in any of his writings did Einstein use the term "dark energy" in reference to lambda?

You are, in effect, accusing Albert Einstein of dishonesty. The dishonesty, however, is yours and yours alone.

Pfft. Your strawman is the only thing that is "dishonest". It's also ironic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Can we please stay on topic in this thread?

 

[GeeMack]

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?

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...

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 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?

 

[Tubbythin]

Where in any of his writings did Einstein use the term "dark energy" in reference to lambda?

Semantics.