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

[Reality Check]

I would however expect there to be a cyclical flux. I have no idea how large it might be, and clearly I misinterpreted the graph the first time through. I think I'll do some reading.

You asked

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Do you have a way to account for such a wide variation in neutrino emissions over a cycle?

The answer is as stated in the graph - there is an annual variation caused by the Earth's orbit.

So my guess is that you are going to look for a 22 year cycle (the sunspot number cycle is actually ~10.7 years) in the neutrino flux data. Good luck.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

Oh.

What makes you an "expert" on plasma physics again?

If your credentials are irrelevant, then why do you demand expertise from others?

As long as you add the term "electro" to the term "magnetic reconnection", or call it "circuit reconnection" (my preference), I'm fine with that.

I don't understand why a person with no credentials would insist we use his vocabulary instead of the technical jargon employed by experts.

 

[GeeMack]

I don't understand why a person with no credentials would insist we use his vocabulary instead of the technical jargon employed by experts.

Simple lack of honesty so often demonstrated to be the foundation of the arguments put forth by crackpots perhaps?

 

[Ziggurat]

Like I said, I have some reading to do, I need to understand the margins of error and how they are calculated

Well, there might be some minor corrections related to uncertainties in the detection process itself, but the error bars are going to be dominated by simple counting statistics: the standard deviation is simply the square root of the number of counts. You certainly can't ever do better than that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you are retracting your claim the solar flares are electric discharges?
They are now caused by magnetic reconnections (the standard term).

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 prαesses 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 microωανes . 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, vi α a transmission line.

The discharge region, or load, encompαsses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiatιοη (Figure 1 .2) .On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electr-o-static 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.

The aurora is a discharge caused by the bombardment of atoms in the upper atmosphere by 1–20 keV electrons and 200 keV ions spirιlling down the earth's magnetic field lines at high latitudes . Here, the electric field accelerating the charged particles derιves from plasma moving across the earth's dipole magnetic field lines many earth radii into the magnetosphere .

Unless and until you can explain how and why a "magnetic reconnection" event that suddenly heats plasma to a million plus degrees, emits gamma and x-rays galore, not to mention high speed particles, falls outside of Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge, forgetaboutit.

 

[GeeMack]

Unless and until you can explain [...]

Dishonest argument by attempting to shift the burden of proof is noted. Dishonest again. Anyone surprised?

 

[Michael Mozina]

If your credentials are irrelevant, then why do you demand expertise from others?

My credentials were irrelevant on that particular topic because it's not "me against the PHd's. I'm simply presenting Alfven's materials and my position is no different than the Nobel prize winning physicist. If there is conflict it's between Alfven and other Phd's (with or without a Nobel).

In this case however RC is *DENYING* the validity of Peratt's definition (and Dungey's use) of an electrical discharge in a plasma. Not only is Peratt a professional plasma physicist, he was a student of Alfven. Since RC's statement's are in direct conflict with at least three Phd's, one with a Nobel, I'd like to see his credentials on this topic. In this specific case they are relevant.

I don't understand why a person with no credentials would insist we use his vocabulary instead of the technical jargon employed by experts.

Well, if you prefer I can simply call it pseudoscience like Alfven, that's fine too. I'm flexible.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, there might be some minor corrections related to uncertainties in the detection process itself, but the error bars are going to be dominated by simple counting statistics: the standard deviation is simply the square root of the number of counts. You certainly can't ever do better than that.

Anyone have a link to where that neutrino graph came from so I don't have to go hunting for it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dishonest argument by attempting to shift the burden of proof is noted. Dishonest again. Anyone surprised?

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

Your claim, your burden of proof. Where is it?

 

[GeeMack]

My credentials were irrelevant on that particular topic because it's not "me against the PHd's. I'm simply presenting Alfven's materials and my position is no different than the Nobel prize winning physicist. If there is conflict it's between Alfven and other Phd's (with or without a Nobel).

Unless it can be shown that Alfvén specifically claimed...

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

... then that argument is a lie, not to mention spitting on the grave of a dead scientist.

This pointing out the lies is pretty easy stuff when it seems there's at least one in every argument.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Unless it can be shown that Alfvén specifically claimed...

Unless you actually comment on his use of circuits and exploding double layers, and deal with Peratt's definition of a discharge in plasma, all you're doing is demonstrating the pathological nature of your position.

 

[GeeMack]

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

Your claim, your burden of proof. Where is it?

That particular dishonest effort to deflect the burden of proof was thoroughly addressed many times, for example in post #406 on December 7.

Argument by badgering and dishonestly attempting to deflect the burden of proof is noted. The claim, the subject of this thread, is that electrical discharges are or cause CMEs and solar flares. Until and unless that claim is objectively and scientifically supported, the reasonable default position to take is that it is not true. Since the crackpot claim has not been objectively, quantitatively, and scientifically supported, not even remotely, most of us here obviously take the default position. It is not a claim. It is simply where we start. And it is where we are bound to stay if the electric Sun cranks can't support their claim.

Again, the responsibility for supporting a claim falls to the claimant. The default position, in lieu of the claim being objectively supported, is that it is not true.

The responsibility for supporting a claim, this claim...

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

... falls to the claimant. The default position, given that ridiculous claim hasn't been objectively and quantitatively supported, is that it will be reasonably accepted as false. So if anyone is stupid enough to bring this up again, GOTO post #406.

 

[GeeMack]

Unless you actually comment on his use of circuits and exploding double layers, and deal with Peratt's definition of a discharge in plasma, all you're doing is demonstrating the pathological nature of your position.

(Bolding mine.) It's not about me. But, as always, the argument by persistently and dishonestly attempting to deflect the burden of proof is noted.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(Bolding mine.) It's not about me. But, as always, the argument by persistently and dishonestly attempting to deflect the burden of proof is noted.

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

Refusing to acknowledge that there are *multiple* claims being discussed only demonstrates the depth of the denial process.

 

[dasmiller]

Anyone have a link to where that neutrino graph came from so I don't have to go hunting for it?

I found it at http://cupp.oulu.fi/neutrino/nd-sol2.html. It's purported to be the Super Kamiokande data, but I confess that I have no idea who "cupp.oulu.fi" is. Like I said, 10 minutes worth of work; about 1 minute spent on getting the solar neutrino data (it looked like I remembered it).

For the sunspot data, I went to NASA http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml and that led me to a text file with the monthly data: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt

I'd be delighted to find a better source for that neutrino data (tabulated data rather than a gif).

 

[GeeMack]

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

Refusing to acknowledge that there are *multiple* claims being discussed only demonstrates the depth of the denial process.

I'm not refusing to acknowledge any such thing, so that argument is a lie.

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

No quantitative objective support has been offered for this claim yet.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not refusing to acknowledge any such thing, so that argument is a lie.

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

Nothing like acknowledging the question and dodging it at the same time. Wow!

No quantitative objective support has been offered for this claim yet.

False. It's not my fault that you never read or at least never commented on the quantitative support offered by Calqvist, Alfven, Bruce, Dungey (+Peratt's definition of a discharge), or any of the relevant maths.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I found it at http://cupp.oulu.fi/neutrino/nd-sol2.html. It's purported to be the Super Kamiokande data, but I confess that I have no idea who "cupp.oulu.fi" is. Like I said, 10 minutes worth of work; about 1 minute spent on getting the solar neutrino data (it looked like I remembered it).

For the sunspot data, I went to NASA http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml and that led me to a text file with the monthly data: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt

I'd be delighted to find a better source for that neutrino data (tabulated data rather than a gif).

Thanks for the links. That will be helpful. I'm just getting off work now and I'll take some time this evening (and for for the next few weeks) to look a bit more into your question. It's an interesting question IMO and certainly worthy of some serious research. I'll let you know if find some links that I think are relevant or helpful.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Variable Solar Neutrinos

I have addressed the issue of a time variable neutrino flux in my earlier post Electric Sun & Solar Neutrinos III

If the neutrino flux is variable with time that could mean that the fusion reaction rate is variable with time (there is no good reason to assume the fusion rate is rigidly constant in any case), or it could indicate new neutrino physics. A crucial study along these lines appears to be Sturrock, et al., 2005. They analyze the Super-Kamiokande dataset, and compare their analysis & results with several previous studies, some of which report evidence for a variable solar neutrino flux, and some of report the contrary. They conclude, in part, "It appears that current evidence for variability of the solar neutrino flux from the Homestake (99.9% CL), GALLEX (99.9% CL) and Super-Kamiokande (98%-99% CL) experiments, when taken together, comprise a strong case for the existence of a sterile neutrino which, together with the needed large transition magnetic moment, would be harbingers of important new physics." (where CL = Confidence Level). However, Aharmim, et al., 2010 did not find any evidence for variability of the ⁸B neutrinos at SNO, whereas Ranucci & Rovere, et al., 2007 did find evidence for a variability of the ⁸B neutrinos at SNO, but were able to identify the source of the variability as the Earth's elliptical orbit around the Sun. This shows that the variability, if real, is very weak and/or complicated (maybe some neutrinos vary in flux while others so not). So whatever side one wants to take in the argument, definitive claims that there definitely is or is not a variability in solar neutrino flux are at best premature.
( ... )
Once again, the bottom line is this: There is no way that a variable solar neutrino flux can reasonably be interpreted as in any way falsifying, or even weakening, the theory that the source of solar energy is nuclear fusion in the core.

 

[Tubbythin]

I found it at http://cupp.oulu.fi/neutrino/nd-sol2.html. It's purported to be the Super Kamiokande data, but I confess that I have no idea who "cupp.oulu.fi" is.

Oulu is a city in Finland and oulu.fi is the website of the University of Oulu. From here:

The aim of the CUPP-project is the construction of an international underground laboratory for the scientific research in particle physics and cosmology in the Pyh¨asalmi mine. The Pyh¨asalmi mine is the deepest operational base-metal mine in Europe. It provides excellent opportunities for the research of underground physics by having very stable bedrock, low background radiation level, modern infrastructure, and good traffic conditions all around a year.