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

[Michael Mozina]

Alfven believed in Plasma Cosmology.

Sure, and so do I.

He was wrong, and obviously so.

About *EVERYTHING*?

It's hard to understand why he was blinded to its shortcomings and the mountain of experimental evidence against it, but such is life.

Are you under the (false) impression that Alfven rejected standard solar theory?

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 don't really know how to respond to that statement. I'm sure parts of it are true (solid surface sun for instance), but Thunderbolts covers lots of topics on lots of different aspects of EU theory. I have no idea how to lump a whole community of individuals into a singular group/mindset the way you seem to be doing.

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

I don't really have an emotional attachment to any specific (fully defined) solar model. I have PERSONAL scientific preferences of course, but I don't have any great "beef" with standard solar theory.

I can't say for sure what powers the sun nor and I can't rule out fusion. I can't absolutely reject standard solar theory, nor do I. IMO it would be foolish to do so at this point in time. One of the primary reasons I tried to keep this thread "generic" is because *I already know for certain* that my solar theories are a "minority" viewpoint, even *inside* the EU community.

 

[GeeMack]

It is dishonest of you to not answer a direct question that is directly related to this topic.

No. It is a dishonest argument to claim the Sun is powered by electricity and/or that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges and then expect other people to do the work necessary to support it or expect them to defend any alternative explanations. That is dishonest. This burden of proof stuff is grade school science.

[...] what do we have to discuss?

Some of this stuff the electric Sun proponents have studiously avoided since the beginning of this thread some 1300 posts ago. For example...

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

That claim has yet to be supported by objective quantitative evidence. No calculations of power requirements have been offered. No description of the alleged process has been provided. And lies, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, link spamming, and deflection of the burden of proof do not constitute support.

And 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.

Show us where Birkeland, Alfvén, and Bruce describe the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? Explain how they feel about nuclear fusion powering the Sun, and how 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 specifically where he supposedly discussed it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. It is a dishonest argument to claim the Sun is powered by electricity

When did I *EVER* make such a claim or is that just another dishonest strawman on your part?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. It is a dishonest argument to claim......

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

It is dishonest of you to make false claims and not acknowledge that they are false when shown the evidence that they are false. When (if ever) did you intend to retract your false claim?

 

[Ziggurat]

About *EVERYTHING*?

He was wrong about plasma cosmology.

Are you under the (false) impression that Alfven rejected standard solar theory?

No. That, in fact, is rather my whole point. You can't point to anyone doing any real math who DOES reject the standard solar theory. All the electric sun folks who do can't do any math to back up their ideas.

I don't really have an emotional attachment to any specific (fully defined) solar model. I have PERSONAL scientific preferences of course, but I don't have any great "beef" with standard solar theory.

That's quite the news to me, given that you're the author of that solid surface web page. Is this an admission that you were wrong? Or are you trying to claim that a solid surface to the sun is compatible with the standard solar model? Because it isn't.

Or are you simply trying to weasel out of defending what you've claimed before?

I can't say for sure what powers the sun nor and I can't rule out fusion. I can't absolutely reject standard solar theory, nor do I. IMO it would be foolish to do so at this point in time. One of the primary reasons I tried to keep this thread "generic" is because *I already know for certain* that my solar theories are a "minority" viewpoint, even *inside* the EU community.

Ah, so it's the latter.

 

[GeeMack]

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

It is dishonest of you to make false claims and not acknowledge that they are false when shown the evidence that they are false. When (if ever) did you intend to retract your false claim?

Thoroughly dealt with in post #1213. If anyone is having trouble understanding it, I will run it through a reading skill analyzer and modify it to suit a lower level. Just let me know.

The topic is...

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

That claim has yet to be objectivly quantitativly supported. No calculations of power requirements have been provided. There has been no description of the alleged process. Lies, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, link spamming, and deflection of the burden of proof do not support the claim.

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 describe the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? How did they explain nuclear fusion powering the Sun, and how did that fit with their ideas that solar flares are electrical discharges? Show where Birkeland described nuclear fusion as one of the two alleged power sources for the Sun and cite specifically where he supposedly discussed it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

He was wrong about plasma cosmology.

Which part? His solar theories?

No. That, in fact, is rather my whole point.

Now I'm totally confused. Did Alfven not propose an "electric sun" theory? What exactly *IS* an "electric sun" theory in your mind anyway?

You can't point to anyone doing any real math who DOES reject the standard solar theory. All the electric sun folks who do can't do any math to back up their ideas.

Alfven backup up his solar beliefs (and rejection of MR theory) with maths. Have you read them?

That's quite the news to me, given that you're the author of that solid surface web page. Is this an admission that you were wrong? Or are you trying to claim that a solid surface to the sun is compatible with the standard solar model? Because it isn't.

No, it's an admission that even among EU enthusiasts, a Birkeland solar model is a "minority" viewpoint.

Or are you simply trying to weasel out of defending what you've claimed before?

What claim?

Ah, so it's the latter.

Huh? Nobody ever claimed that a Birkeland solar model was the *ONLY* EU solar model. Nobody ever claimed that EU/PC theory was ever dependent upon a Birkeland solar model. It's simply the solar model that I personally prefer based on satellite imagery.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thoroughly dealt with.....

Until you admit it was a mistake, you didn't deal with it, you're in denial of the error.

 

[Skwinty]

The surface of the sun seems to, IMO, behave like the surface of a pot of boiling porridge.

Now, electricity is involved in boiling a pot of porridge, sometimes, but only in the sense that it is just another source of heat

The pot boils equally well using any other source of heat, like fusion for example.

Thats were my money is. (fusion)

Okay, I am leaving now.

 

[GeeMack]

Until you admit it was a mistake, you didn't deal with it, you're in denial of the error.

(Bolding mine.) Continuing violations of forum rules 11 and 12 noted.

The topic is...

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

This has yet to be objectively and quantitatively supported. No power requirements have been calculated. No description of the alleged process has been offered. The alleged support so far has been comprised of lies, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, link spamming, and dishonestly deflecting of the burden of proof.

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 describe the amount of electrical power internal to the Sun and the amount that comes from outside? How did they explain nuclear fusion powering the Sun, and how did that work with their ideas that solar flares are electrical discharges? Show where Birkeland described nuclear fusion as one of the two alleged power sources for the Sun and cite specifically where he allegedly discussed it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(Bolding mine.) Continuing violations

If you continue to ignore the data and your own errors, why are you involved in the discussion?

This has yet to be objectively and quantitatively supported.

Ya, it was. I provided you with Alfven's papers and Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge. You won't respond to them or acknowledge them, much like Dungey's work.

 

[GeeMack]

Are you under the (false) impression that Alfven rejected standard solar theory?

If Alfvén accepted the standard solar model, then he did not accept the crackpot conjecture of a Sun powered by electricity or where solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges. The notions are mutually exclusive.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If Alfvén accepted the standard solar model,

If? Oh ya you didn't actually read his work.....

If you had, you would have noticed that he used a standard solar theory and defined flares in terms of circuits and "explosive double layers" (AKA discharges in plasma).

 

[Michael Mozina]

The surface of the sun seems to, IMO, behave like the surface of a pot of boiling porridge.

I'd say that's a fair assessment of how the photosphere surface appears.

Now, electricity is involved in boiling a pot of porridge, sometimes, but only in the sense that it is just another source of heat

Sure but something needs to raise the temperature from a few thousand degrees up to tens of millions of degrees. We need a heat source *OTHER THAN* your boiling porridge to explain coronal loops.

The pot boils equally well using any other source of heat, like fusion for example.

Whatever the internal heat source, it really doesn't explain flares particularly well. We still have those multimillion degree coronal loops to explain even with a fusion core.

 

[GeeMack]

If you continue to ignore the data and your own errors, why are you involved in the discussion?

(Bolding mine.) This isn't about me.

Part of what skeptics do is point out lies, logical fallacies, and silly unsupportable claims. In this thread they are glaringly obvious and abundant.

Ya, it was. I provided you with Alfven's papers and Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge. You won't respond to them or acknowledge them, much like Dungey's work.

(Bolding mine.) This isn't about me.

The material provided has been reviewed and subsequently rejected as quantitative objective support for the claim that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges. It has been dishonestly misinterpreted in many cases, and in pretty much every case severely misunderstood by the electric Sun proponents.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which part? His solar theories?

Solar theories are different than cosmology.

Now I'm totally confused. Did Alfven not propose an "electric sun" theory?

No, he didn't.

What exactly *IS* an "electric sun" theory in your mind anyway?

That macroscopic currents are the primary drivers of solar dynamics.

Huh? Nobody ever claimed that a Birkeland solar model was the *ONLY* EU solar model.

Way to miss the point, Michael.

NOBODY - not Birkeland, not Alfven, NOBODY - has proposed a model for the sun other than the standard picture of core fusion which can account for the total power output of the sun.

Nobody ever claimed that EU/PC theory was ever dependent upon a Birkeland solar model.

Yet you keep trying to defend Birkeland's work, even though it's rather absurd to think he could have gotten it right without knowing about fusion. He certainly didn't get the rings of Saturn right (yet for some reason, you use THAT picture to represent his solar model).

It's simply the solar model that I personally prefer based on satellite imagery.

The pretty bunny approach to science. Screw trying to actually quantify the most important features of the object we're studying, let's just look for superficial similarities in pictures!

 

[Michael Mozina]

(Bolding mine.) This isn't about me.

You're right, it's not about you, it's about the data that has been presented, your (false) statements in this thread, and the human self defense mechanism called denial.

Part of what skeptics do

The first thing "real" skeptics do is actually read and respond to the materials presented.

 

[GeeMack]

If? Oh ya you didn't actually read his work.....

If you had, you would have noticed that he used a standard solar theory and defined flares in terms of circuits and "explosive double layers" (AKA discharges in plasma).

Solar flares and CMEs being electrical discharges is not a component of standard solar theory. Nobody can be a proponent of the standard solar model and of the crackpot electric Sun conjecture. They are mutually exclusive. It would be a lie to suggest that was Alfvén's, or any sane intelligent person's position.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Solar theories are different than cosmology.

So you agree with his solar theories and reject his cosmology theories?

No, he didn't.

So you have no problem with any of his work *INSIDE* this solar system? Flares are in fact explosive double layers as Alfven described them?

That macroscopic currents are the primary drivers of solar dynamics.

Well, then by your (very limited) definition of an "electric sun", only Jeurgenson's model was an "electric sun".

Way to miss the point, Michael.

NOBODY - not Birkeland, not Alfven, NOBODY - has proposed a model for the sun other than the standard picture of core fusion which can account for the total power output of the sun.

And nobody has to. It's you that seems to miss that point.

Yet you keep trying to defend Birkeland's work, even though it's rather absurd to think he could have gotten it right without knowing about fusion. He certainly didn't get the rings of Saturn right (yet for some reason, you use THAT picture to represent his solar model).

FYI, that is because *BIRKELAND* himself used that model and compared it to the sun specifically (himself). Birkeland actually discussed (and experimented with) the transmutation of elements. He was on to the idea long before it was fully understood. Keep in mind that Birkeland's "cathode" solar model isn't even limited to a "solid surface" solar model! It too could have (at least in theory) a fusion core.

The pretty bunny approach to science.

No, it's called the observational (and experimental) approach to science.

Screw trying to actually quantify the most important features of the object we're studying, let's just look for superficial similarities in pictures!

I can post pretty pictures. I can post Alfven's whole book and I can't get any of you (perhaps T) to comment on Alfven's circuit orientations. It's you folk that seem to be saying "forget the maths" since you can't be bothered to read them or respond to them.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Solar flares and CMEs being electrical discharges is not a component of standard solar theory. Nobody can be a proponent of the standard solar model and of the crackpot electric Sun conjecture. They are mutually exclusive. It would be a lie to suggest that was Alfvén's, or any sane intelligent person's position.

It's only a "mutually exclusive" concept in your mind because your opinions are not based upon knowledge that you gained by reading his actual work and commenting on that work, but rather it is based upon blind ignorance and a complete aversion to even discussing his actual writings.