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

[Ziggurat]

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

I absolutely reject his cosmology theories, because they're obvious nonsense.

I have no strong objections to his solar theories, though I'm not really the best person to ask about that.

But the idea that Alfven had it all right and everyone since has been deluded fools is, well, not really credible. Science advances. There are plenty of people today who understand relativity better than Einstein ever did. And not because they're smarter than him, but because they've been able to build on top of his work. No matter how much of a genius Alfven was, it's a damn safe bet that current astrophysicists have a better handle on the sun than he ever did. That's just the way of things. And it holds even more strongly for Birkeland.

Furthermore, given that what you seem to be claiming Alfven said conflicts with what other people are telling me Alfven said, and given that these other people have been right and you've been spectacularly wrong in regards to other issues I'm in a good position to evaluate, I frankly don't trust you to have accurately characterized anything he said.

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

I presume you mean Jeurgens, but he's the only one I've seen put any numbers to the idea, and the numbers were absolute nonsense. But plenty of other folk have endorsed the basic concept, even if without any quantification.

Birkeland actually discussed (and experimented with) the transmutation of elements.

Yeah: fission. Not fusion. That's the sort of misrepresentation I'm talking about, and why I don't trust you in regards to Aflven.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

It's not about that, either. The persistent violation of forum rule 11 is noted.

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

No. Nobody, skeptic or otherwise, has any responsibility to respond scientifically to material that is irrelevant, dishonestly presented, and/or radically misunderstood by those presenting it. Nobody, skeptic or otherwise, has any obligation to indulge someone's desire to talk all sciency about things they don't understand. Anyone, skeptic or otherwise, may notice and point out lies and logical fallacies in a discussion here at the JREF forum, particularly when those lies and fallacies are as obvious and frequent as those put forth by electric Sun proponents.

In my ongoing attempt to get keep this discussion on topic...

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

This has not been objectively and quantitatively supported. Power requirements have not been calculated. Descriptions of the alleged process have not been offered. Supposed support in the form of lies, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, link spamming, and dishonestly deflecting of the burden of proof is not valid support.

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's, Alfvén's, and Bruce's takes on 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? Where did Birkeland mention a fusion core as one of the alleged power sources for the Sun? Cite specifically where he allegedly discussed it.

 

[dasmiller]

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.

We don't necessarily need a different heat source, we just need to understand the heat transfer mechanism. The sun's core (in the standard model) is much hotter than the corona.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I absolutely reject his cosmology theories, because they're obvious nonsense.

I'd ask you to be specific about which parts, but it's out of the context of this thread. For purposes of this conversation it really doesn't matter.

I have no strong objections to his solar theories, though I'm not really the best person to ask about that.

Ok.

But the idea that Alfven had it all right and everyone since has been deluded fools is, well, not really credible.

Did I make that claim or are you tilting at windmills of your own design?

Science advances. There are plenty of people today who understand relativity better than Einstein ever did. And not because they're smarter than him, but because they've been able to build on top of his work. No matter how much of a genius Alfven was, it's a damn safe bet that current astrophysicists have a better handle on the sun than he ever did.

The problem is that the 'mainstream' rejected Birkeland's auroral theories for something like 5 decades until satellites made it impossible to deny the validity of that part of his work any longer. Unfortunately the mainstream didn't take his work on aurora and run with it, so what makes you think anyone picked up Alfven's work and ran with it?

That's just the way of things. And it holds even more strongly for Birkeland.

Not IMO. IMO Birkeland was *SO* far ahead of the mainstream that they *STILL* can't believe it. It's like his work is recognized by the mainstream in the most minimal way, but only a tiny little part of it is actually recognized or even KNOWN to most mainstreamers.

Furthermore, given that what you seem to be claiming Alfven said conflicts with what other people are telling me Alfven said, and given that these other people have been right and you've been spectacularly wrong in regards to other issues I'm in a good position to evaluate, I frankly don't trust you to have accurately characterized anything he said.

For the life of me I really cannot understand why *ANY* of the practicing "skeptics" of these ideas are involved in this conversation if they haven't at least read Alfven's work for themselves at least well enough to understand who's at presenting it correctly and who is not! I'm not sure you personally actively fall into that category since you tend to be more low key than most, but frankly I don't get it. Why would anyone reject an idea if they don't properly understand it?

I presume you mean Jeurgens, but he's the only one I've seen put any numbers to the idea, and the numbers were absolute nonsense. But plenty of other folk have endorsed the basic concept, even if without any quantification.

To my knowledge that is the only EU/PC solar model that *REQUIRES* a significant external electrical input. It's therefore the only one that really warrants a whole separate energy calc IMO.

Yeah: fission. Not fusion. That's the sort of misrepresentation I'm talking about, and why I don't trust you in regards to Aflven.

I've tried to be extremely clear about where my ideas differ from Alfven's views or Birkeland's views. It's not really fair to blame me for your confusion. I'm not technically asking you to "trust me" in the first place. I'd rather you read his materials for yourself in fact. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to happen very often among the 'skeptics' of his views in my experience.

 

[Michael Mozina]

We don't necessarily need a different heat source, we just need to understand the heat transfer mechanism. The sun's core (in the standard model) is much hotter than the corona.

You're right, I stand corrected.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nobody, skeptic or otherwise, has any responsibility to respond scientifically to material that is irrelevant,

No, but a real skeptic is required to read and respond to relevant information like Dungey's paper and respond logically. Since you refuse to retract your erroneous statements about flares and electrical discharges, even *AFTER* reading the relevant materials, I have no confidence that you are interested in a scientific conversation on this topic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In my ongoing attempt to get keep this discussion on topic...

Pfft. That's a laugh.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This has not been objectively and quantitatively supported. Power requirements have not been calculated.

That is pure denial on your part. If you don't read about or respond to Alfven's use of circuits and exploding double layers, that does *NOT* mean it hasn't been presented to you.

 

[Ziggurat]

Michael, what do YOU think qualifies as an "Electric Sun Theory"? Because at this point, damned if I know what you think one is. What, if anything, distinguishes such a theory from the standard solar model?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, what do YOU think qualifies as an "Electric Sun Theory"? Because at this point, damned if I know what you think one is. What, if anything, distinguishes such a theory from the standard solar model?

Hmmm. That's actually not as simple of a question as it first sounds. I would say that any solar model whose surface electromagnetically interacts with the heliosphere to produce solar wind is technically an 'electric sun' model. IMO the standard model is actually a primitive electric model it's just "dumbed down" to "magnetism" instead of "electromagnetism".

 

[Perpetual Student]

IMO the standard model is actually a primitive electric model it's just "dumbed down" to "magnetism" instead of "electromagnetism".

Where does one begin? Someone with no scientific credentials is calling an accepted scientific model "dumbed down" as opposed to his personal non-mathematical and unscientific notions. Then we have the idea of "magnetism instead of electromagnetism" in the standard model -- stated as something that actually has some conceptual validity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Where does one begin?

We could begin with Alfven's maths. It's absolutely amazing to me how you put GR on such a pedestal, even "mystical" brands of GR, yet you won't even touch Alfven's maths. Why?

Someone with no scientific credentials is calling an accepted scientific model "dumbed down" as opposed to his personal non-mathematical and unscientific notions.

Well, Alfven did it too. He called their theories "pseudoscience" and he had the credentials. Credentials seem to be irrelevant as far as I can tell as it relates to this debate.

Then we have the idea of "magnetism instead of electromagnetism" in the standard model -- stated as something that actually has some conceptual validity.

What I find "crazy" is the lengths the mainstream goes to in an effort to "dumb down" the whole process to "magnetism" when it is clearly and certainly an *ELECTROmagnetic* process in moving plasma. It's like they go out of they way to NOT mention the dreaded "electricity" aspects of that moving plasma lest the dreaded EU theory sneak in the back door.

 

[GeeMack]

No, but a real skeptic is required to read and respond to relevant information like Dungey's paper and respond logically. Since you refuse to retract your erroneous statements about flares and electrical discharges, even *AFTER* reading the relevant materials, I have no confidence that you are interested in a scientific conversation on this topic.

A real skeptic has no such requirement. If a real skeptic catches a crackpot arguing by lying, he/she may call them on it without so much as passing mention of any scientific aspects of the lie. If a real skeptic catches a crackpot arguing by logical fallacy, dishonestly misinterpreting a dead scientist's work, dishonestly trying to deflect the burden of proof, or dishonestly ignoring legitimate contemporary science, a real skeptic has no obligation to indulge a crackpot's taunting demands to treat those fallacies as a scientific conversation.

If, and that's a very big if, one which I have yet to see happen, if the crackpot can get past the fallacies and be honest, objective, and quantitative, only then is he/she actually engaging in scientific dialog. Talking all sciency about pretty pictures that look like bunnies, dead scientists, unsupported guesses that run contrary to the laws of physics, and cherry-picked one liners from irrelevant sources is not scientific dialog, badgering people to respond as if it is notwithstanding.

Pfft. That's a laugh.

See rule 11.

That is pure denial on your part. If you don't read about or respond to Alfven's use of circuits and exploding double layers, that does *NOT* mean it hasn't been presented to you.

(Bolding mine.) It's not about me. If we read the material presented by the crackpots and understand it well enough to recognize that it doesn't support the claim because it's irrelevant, misinterpreted, misunderstood, or superceded by more refined, complete, and current research which makes it obsolete, that doesn't mean it wasn't presented. It doesn't mean it wasn't read. And it doesn't mean it wasn't considered. It means it was found to be unacceptable as quantitative objective support. So given that...

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

This claim has not been objectively and quantitatively supported regardless of the many failed attempts. Saying some guy in some paper mentioned something about electrical and discharges in the same sentence has failed. Waving around some pictures that kinda sorta look like electric sparks if we squint our eyes and wish real hard has failed every time, for years. Power requirements have not been calculated. Thorough, understandable descriptions of a functional processes have not been provided. There is no electric Sun model. It isn't science. It's a guess, and not a very good guess either since it's contrary to observed data and is physically implausible, to say the least.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Have you read Einstein's The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity?

Not for many years, but yes, although I had read most of his papers separately before hand. You can find a link to it in English here in fact:

http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf

Thank you, Michael.

I've studied Calculus. I'm not sure that quite qualifies me as an "expert" on the topic of GR however.

Glad to hear you aren't sure about that.

If you really want help with GR, I suggest you ask sol. He's certainly more qualified on that particular topic than I am.

Agreed.

Well, Alfven did it too. He called their theories "pseudoscience" and he had the credentials. Credentials seem to be irrelevant as far as I can tell as it relates to this debate.

I'm not quite sure which of the following propositions you intended to affirm:

• Alfvén's credentials are irrelevant.
• We should pay more attention to the credentials of those who argue for or against Electric Sun Theory and its like.

 

[GeeMack]

We could begin with Alfven's maths. It's absolutely amazing to me how you put GR on such a pedestal, even "mystical" brands of GR, yet you won't even touch Alfven's maths. Why?

Maybe because none of the crackpots have been able to show that Alfvén's math actually supports their harebrained claims? There isn't even evidence to suggest any of the electric Sun proponents understand Alfvén's math. Maybe if they did they could point out specifically where Alfvén shows their nutty conjectures are correct instead of just waving around some stuff they recognize as math but don't understand from chicken scratchin's. The argument that Alfvén's math is ignored is another lie. Viewed from the perspective of an intelligent, aware skeptic, it's not amazing at all.

Well, Alfven did it too. He called their theories "pseudoscience" and he had the credentials. Credentials seem to be irrelevant as far as I can tell as it relates to this debate.

Tim Thompson did a pretty good job earlier in this thread of showing how that particular Alfvén/pseudoscience argument is another lie.

What I find "crazy" is the lengths the mainstream goes to in an effort to "dumb down" the whole process to "magnetism" when it is clearly and certainly an *ELECTROmagnetic* process in moving plasma. It's like they go out of they way to NOT mention the dreaded "electricity" aspects of that moving plasma lest the dreaded EU theory sneak in the back door.

Tim has also done a pretty good job of describing how electricity is very thoroughly considered in solar physics and plasma physics, so that argument is, of course, another lie.

 

[Michael Mozina]

A real skeptic has no such requirement.

You know I've talked to a *LOT* of self professed "skeptics" of evolutionary theory. They feel the same way you do. They don't seem to feel any need to support their own statements and beliefs with real science. They simply handwave at all the data they don't like, and deny whatever it takes to simply "dismiss" any and all information presented to them. That's not a real "skeptic", that's a "Denier" in skeptics clothing.

Since you *REFUSE* to discuss any of the relevant papers, books, circuits, exploding double layers, definitions of electrical discharges in plasma, etc, and you refuse to retract your obvious errors, I have no desire to discuss this topic any further with you. It would be a waste of my time. I don't argue with creationists and pseudo-skeptics anymore. It's a complete waste of time.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thank you, Michael.

You're welcome.

I'm not quite sure which of the following propositions you intended to affirm:

• Alfvén's credentials are irrelevant.
• We should pay more attention to the credentials of those who argue for or against Electric Sun Theory and its like.

My intent was to point out that *MY* credentials are irrelevant.

 

[Michael Mozina]

A real skeptic has no such requirement. If a real skeptic catches a crackpot arguing by lying, he/she may call them on it without so much as passing mention of any scientific aspects of the lie.

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

Speaking of lies....

Were you ready to retract your lie yet?

 

[GeeMack]

You know I've talked to a *LOT* of self professed "skeptics" of evolutionary theory. They feel the same way you do. They don't seem to feel any need to support their own statements and beliefs with real science. They simply handwave at all the data they don't like, and deny whatever it takes to simply "dismiss" any and all information presented to them. That's not a real "skeptic", that's a "Denier" in skeptics clothing.

Since you *REFUSE* to discuss any of the relevant papers, books, circuits, exploding double layers, definitions of electrical discharges in plasma, etc, and you refuse to retract your obvious errors, I have no desire to discuss this topic any further with you. It would be a waste of my time. I don't argue with creationists and pseudo-skeptics anymore. It's a complete waste of time.

(Bolding mine.) The wholesale lack of substantive content and continued personal attack is noted. But of course it's not about me. I don't have to support anything here. Tim Thompson doesn't. W.D.Clinger and Perpetual Student don't. Ziggurat, dasmiller, Tubbythin, Skwinty, and tusenfem aren't responsible for supporting any claims here. DeiRenDopa, The Man, nvidiot, and sol invictus aren't either. We aren't the ones proposing some kind of nutty against-the-mainstream conjecture. We aren't here to indulge anyone's fantasy or validate anyone's nonsense claims. But the dishonest tactic of trying to shift the burden of proof is also, as always, noted.

I'm not defending any particular model. This thread is about the electric Sun conjecture. And given the complete lack of valid argument by the electric Sun proponents to quantitatively and objectively support their wacky claims, it's reasonable to assume it's a wholly unsupportable conjecture. There is no electric Sun model. No legitimate evidence has been provided. That is true. No sciency sounding discussion or alternative explanations are required to make it true.

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

Speaking of lies....

Were you ready to retract your lie yet?

Once more, arguing by dishonestly trying to shift the burden of proof is noted. I don't have to prove that solar filament eruptions and CMEs aren't electrical discharges or that electrical discharges don't cause solar flares and CMEs. I haven't seen any objective quantitative support for those claims. The Sun's atmosphere is plasma. Plasma is a conductor. For electrical discharges to occur a dielectric medium is required. Plasma, being a conductor, isn't a dielectric medium. We've covered this. Often.

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

For the record, that particular claim, the topic of this thread, hasn't been remotely shown to be true, or even possible. To keep the thread on topic, that would be a fine place to start.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't have to support anything here.

Yes you do. You (not anyone else) made a false claim. You have yet to acknowledge that it was a false claim. Until there is an acknowledgment of that error, there's nothing for us to discuss. Either admit the mistake or just go away, one or the other.