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

[Ziggurat]

There are evidently none that *YOU* have personally read or commented on. That seems to be a basic theme around here. I provide references, you folks never read them, and more denial ensues.

I've read and commented on plenty of your links in the past. Yet it never made any difference, you would always persist in your delusions despite being shown why you were wrong. So I've stopped bothering. Until you can come up with a way to account for the power output of the sun, it's simply not worth my time.

 

[GeeMack]

Your expertise in graphics is interesting considering you have absolutely no respect for pure observation. Your comment: "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" pretty much disqualified you immediately from having any expertise whatsoever in solar physics.

It's not about me, regardless of the incessant effort to derail the thread by making it so. Oh, and since I never said, "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?", I'm sure we all, including the forum moderators, will agree the quote is a bald faced lie and a dishonest personal attack.

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

For the record, that silly claim hasn't even remotely been shown to be possible, much less true. And since that is the topic of the thread, now would be as good a time as any for the electric Sun proponents to support that ridiculous claim objectively, scientifically, and quantitatively, or admit that it's unsupportable.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I've read and commented on plenty of your links in the past. Yet it never made any difference, you would always persist in your delusions despite being shown why you were wrong.

Please demonstrate even *ONE* error in *ANY* paper, book or other reference I have listed in this thread or the flare thread.

Until you can come up with a way to account for the power output of the sun, it's simply not worth my time.

Oh for crying out loud! Why? Why must an electric sun *NECESSARILY* have a "different' power source? When did Alfven make that claim? Bruce?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not about me, regardless of the incessant effort to derail the thread by making it so.

Other than the topic of denial, what is there for you and I to talk about since you refuse to acknowledge or comment on Alfven's use of circuits, Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma, Dungey's work, or any relevant paper I have presented thus far? When was the last time you made a post that did not include the term "lie", "dishonest", "crackpot" or "crank"? Talk about making it "personal" in every single post!

 

[GeeMack]

Please demonstrate even *ONE* error in *ANY* paper, book or other reference I have listed in this thread or the flare thread.

Dishonestly attempting to shift the burden of proof is, as always, noted.

Oh for crying out loud! Why? Why must an electric sun *NECESSARILY* have a "different' power source? When did Alfven make that claim? Bruce?

So the electric Sun isn't electric after all. Speaking of the simplicity of poking holes in the crackpots' arguments by pointing out the lies and logical fallacies, that is some seriously stupid backpedaling!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dishonestly attempting to shift the burden of proof is, as always, noted.

Here's another example of your use of your personal attack crutch. The only dishonest behavior is your refusal to address any of the appropriate materials.

It's really sad that you have the emotional need to to post "stupid", "dishonest" ad homs in every single one of your posts.

 

[GeeMack]

Other than the topic of denial, what is there for you and I to talk about since you refuse to acknowledge or comment on Alfven's use of circuits, Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma, Dungey's work, or any relevant paper I have presented thus far? When was the last time you made a post that did not include the term "lie", "dishonest", "crackpot" or "crank"? Talk about making it "personal" in every single post!

There isn't a single thing in that comment that even remotely addresses the electric Sun topic.

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

If there is any objective quantitative evidence to suggest that claim is true, it would be a good time to bring it into the conversation. If there isn't, it would be a good time to admit, honestly, that it's an unsupportable claim.

 

[Michael Mozina]

There isn't a single thing in that comment that even remotely addresses the electric Sun topic.

Sure there is. Start with this question that you keep avoiding and denying.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

 

[GeeMack]

Here's another example of your use of your personal attack crutch. The only dishonest behavior is your refusal to address any of the appropriate materials.

It's really sad that you have the emotional need to to post "stupid", "dishonest" ad homs in every single one of your posts.

(Bolding mine.) It's not about me. The following claim is the gist of the topic of this thread...

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

It has yet to be supported in a substantive, objective, quantitative way.

Oh, as for putting the "E" in JREF... The term "ad hom" is misused above. Saying electric Sun proponents are wrong because they're crackpots would be an ad hom. Fact is, they're considered crackpots because their arguments demonstrate an unwavering faith in an unscientific notion which is demonstrably wrong. That's not an ad hom because it's extremely well evidenced and pretty much defines crackpots. (There is a thread discussing crackpottery in general, a better place for such a discussion.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

(Bolding mine.) It's not about me.

No, it's about this false statement you made:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

Are you ready to admit you were wrong yet? Until you do, you and I can really only discuss the topic of denial, since that is the only thing left to discuss.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, the term 'crackpot' is most certainly an ad hom in debate. It's an emotional crutch, much like a theist uses the term "evil".

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh for crying out loud! Why? Why must an electric sun *NECESSARILY* have a "different' power source? When did Alfven make that claim? Bruce?

Because that's what distinguishes Electric Universe theories of the sun from the standard stellar model. And that's what the EU folks keep claiming.

I note that while you object to me saying that the EU folks can't account for the power output of the sun, you won't actually say that it comes from core fusion.

 

[Tubbythin]

FYI, the term 'crackpot' is most certainly an ad hom in debate. It's an emotional crutch, much like a theist uses the term "evil".

Funny, I seem to remember you pointlessly adding "evil" in to conversations about dark energy and the like.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because that's what distinguishes Electric Universe theories of the sun from the standard stellar model.

If that were true, would Alfven have necessarily rejected the standard solar model?

And that's what the EU folks keep claiming.

All EU folks, or just a few you've met in cyberspace?

I note that while you object to me saying that the EU folks can't account for the power output of the sun, you won't actually say that it comes from core fusion.

What I object to is your rejection of Alfven's PC/EU theories based upon a claim that Alfven never made!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Funny, I seem to remember you pointlessly adding "evil" in to conversations about dark energy and the like.

Sure, but not in every single post.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I note that while you object to me saying that the EU folks can't account for the power output of the sun, you won't actually say that it comes from core fusion.

I won't actually say it *doesn't* come from core fusion either by the way.

 

[GeeMack]

Sure there is. Start with this question that you keep avoiding and denying.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

The dishonest attempt to deflect the burden of proof is, as always, noted. (Burden of proof argument fallacy... "E" in JREF and all that.) I'm not the one making a claim here. I'm not a proponent of the silly notion that the Sun is powered by electricity or that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges, so it's clearly not my responsibility to support that position nor to defend any alternative explanations.

Interesting, notable, and somewhat telling, that for the past couple of pages, no matter how diligently some of us attempt to keep this discussion on topic, there has been a vigorous effort to avoid actually supporting the crackpot electric Sun claim which is the topic of this thread.

No, it's about this false statement you made:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

Are you ready to admit you were wrong yet? Until you do, you and I can really only discuss the topic of denial, since that is the only thing left to discuss.

(Bolding mine.) The dishonest and persistent effort to derail the discussion and shift the burden of proof, as well as the habitual total lack of any relevant commentary is noted.

So it merits another mention...

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

That's the claim. If it can't be supported quantitatively and objectively, the right thing to do is acknowledge failure. If it can be, the right thing to do is, well, to get down to the business of doing it.

And this has been ignored for quite some time now...

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 specifically did Birkeland, Alfvén, or Bruce describe the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? How did they feel about nuclear fusion powering the Sun, and how did it fit that into their ideas that solar flares are caused by electrical discharges? Tell us how Birkeland felt about nuclear fusion being one of the two alleged power sources for the Sun and cite where he allegedly discussed it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The dishonest attempt to deflect the burden of proof is, as always, noted. (Burden of proof argument fallacy...

It is dishonest of you to not answer a direct question that is directly related to this topic. So long as you refuse to acknowledge that:

A)Electrical discharges occur in plasma
B)Dungey (and many others) wrote about them
C)Discharges occur in flares

what do we have to discuss?

 

[Ziggurat]

What I object to is your rejection of Alfven's PC/EU theories based upon a claim that Alfven never made!

Alfven believed in Plasma Cosmology. He was wrong, and obviously so. It's hard to understand why he was blinded to its shortcomings and the mountain of experimental evidence against it, but such is life.

But he was never a proponent of what is now commonly called "Electric Universe" theories. Stuff like the nonsense on Thunderbolts, or your ridiculous solid surface theory.

I won't actually say it *doesn't* come from core fusion either by the way.

Of course you won't. You know you can't defend any alternative models, but won't admit they're wrong either.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(Bolding mine.) The dishonest and persistent effort to derail the discussion and shift the burden of proof, as well as the habitual total lack of any relevant commentary is noted.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

Actually, in this specific case (certainly not in all cases), the topic of denial is applicable. If an individual simply refuses to acknowledge their mistakes and refuses to acknowledge the appropriate scientific writings and quantifications presented that demonstrate these mistakes, what is there to actually discuss *OTHER* than denial?