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

[Reality Check]

In your case those mistakes all seem to center around the fact that you can't accept the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasmas,

Still wrong: The facts are

• electrical discharges (as in lightning) can never happen in plasma.
• the term electrical discharge has been used in older papers (e.g. by Dungey) in other contexts (e.g. high current densities).

I accept that high current densities can occur in plasma. I accept that you could if you want call these high current densities, 'electrical discharges' so long as you accept that has no relationship with the usual use of the term. The biggest difference is that there is no discharge!

even though I've shown you some occurring inside of a tokamac,

Citation?
Link to the post?
Or is this your plasma discharge chamber = electrical discharge fantasy?

and in spite of the fact that Peratt defines the process as a *DEFINITION*, and Dungey wrote about them in relationship to solar flares over 60 years ago. Hoy.

Hoy: You are lying:

• Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
  First asked 3rd February 2011
• Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
  First asked 7 December 2010
• Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
  First asked 11 January 2011
• MM: Why does the title of Anthony Peratt's book appear in the section 1.5 title?
  Shouldn't the title be "Electrical discharges in Plasma"?
  Or what is the magical property of "cosmic" plasmas that allows lightning in them when lightning is impossible in normal plasmas?
  First asked 11th May 2011

Dungey's use of the term electrical discharge is still not understand by you - he used it in the context of high current density with no "sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy" involved.
ETA
And here is Peratt's defintioion (quote mined by MM):

Originally Posted by Peratt
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 detemined 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 radiatiοη.

The page never mentions electrical discharges inside plasmas. The closest to that is the section title above. It does mention

• the generation of particle beams, X-rays and microwaves
• lightning is noted as "the discharge mechanism at work"!
• aurora

 

[GeeMack]

Actually even that isn't true ben. You seem to forget that I've published papers with 3 other authors.

Actually that is, at its very most honest interpretation, stretching the truth. The fellow who actually wrote the papers, Oliver Manuel, has denied that he is in agreement with the solid iron surface conjecture. His relevant comments may be found at the BAUT forum. So no, there is no evidence that anyone else on Earth believes the same looks-like-a-bunny nonsense we've seen presented in this thread.

ETA:

It looks like your co-authors are either gullible or ignorant.

... or both. The gist of the paper about the Sun sorting itself into layers according to mass has the Sun with an iron core, exactly opposite of its alleged location in the iron surface, sparks like arc welding, lightning coming up through the photosphere nonsense being presented in this thread.

 

[tusenfem]

Actually even that isn't true ben. You seem to forget that I've published papers with 3 other authors.

did you verify in the laboratory whether what you and your co-authors claim can actually happen? Is there truly a CNO cycle or is that also just bunnies in the sky (never ever shown in the lab) And let's not even go to the laboratory verification of the "cosmic cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars."

Two papers in 2006 with Oliver Manuel and Hilton Ratcliff, total citations according to ISI: 1 (by Manuel himself)

Seems like you are measuring with a double standart, you want us to show everything in the lab, whereas you can just publish papers totally unverified whatsoever.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I love it! Pretend science with pretend published papers. I wonder if the authors spend their weekends in their pretend Batman uniforms?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I love it! Pretend science with pretend published papers.

I guess you're pretending that Mann and Onel paper wasn't published, nor any of Alfven's works?

I wonder if the authors spend their weekends in their pretend Batman uniforms?

Er, no. That would be your side pretending that mythical things like "dark" stuff, inflation fairies, and what Alfven called "pseudoscience" did it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

did you verify in the laboratory whether what you and your co-authors claim can actually happen? Is there truly a CNO cycle or is that also just bunnies in the sky (never ever shown in the lab) And let's not even go to the laboratory verification of the "cosmic cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars."

Two papers in 2006 with Oliver Manuel and Hilton Ratcliff, total citations according to ISI: 1 (by Manuel himself)

Seems like you are measuring with a double standart, you want us to show everything in the lab, whereas you can just publish papers totally unverified whatsoever.

You don't seem to comprehend the concept of "empirical" very well. I don't require your side to demonstrate "sustained" hydrogen, helium and carbon fusion reactions in order for your solar theories to be 'empirically valid' theories.

In fact, I don't even bitch when you guys point at the sky and claim that something in the sky is made of pure neutrons. I accept and recognize that some things will have to be "scaled" to sizes that are simply not practical to produce here on Earth.

I don't complain about your solar theories being anything other than an 'empirical theory' even though nobody can build a fully functional star in the lab, let alone demonstrate fusion up to iron as you folks claim.

You're welcome to point at the sky and claim it's energy source is fusion driven if you like because fusion has been shown to happen here on Earth. You can point at the sky and claim that things in the sky are made of the same things we find on Earth, like neutrons, and that's ok by me too.

If however you point at the sky and claim that your invisible friends did it, I'll want to see some evidence that your invisible friends A) actually exist and aren't just a figment of your overactive imagination, and B) have the tangible, empirical effect on matter that you claim they have.

For instance, we can accelerate plasma with EM fields. We can accelerate plasma with gravitational fields too. We can measure the effects in controlled conditions.

 

[GeeMack]

Er, no. That would be your side pretending that mythical things like "dark" stuff, inflation fairies, and what Alfven called "pseudoscience" did it.

No scientist has mentioned anything like "inflation fairies". That sort of nonsense is definitively the realm of cranks and crackpots.

 

[GeeMack]

If however you point at the sky and claim that your invisible friends did it, I'll want to see some evidence that your invisible friends A) actually exist and aren't just a figment of your overactive imagination, and B) have the tangible, empirical effect on matter that you claim they have.

To suggest a theory or concept is invalid while being wholly unqualified to understand that theory is, by definition, an argument from ignorance. To suggest that a theory or concept doesn't apply, while admitting a lack of knowledge about that theory or concept, is also an argument from ignorance.

If there is any quantitative objective evidence that supports the cockamamie notion that the Sun is powered by electricity or that solar flares and CMEs are analogous to gigantic bolts of lightning, it certainly hasn't been presented in this discussion.

 

[ben m]

For instance, we can accelerate plasma with EM fields. We can accelerate plasma with gravitational fields too. We can measure the effects in controlled conditions.

Yeah, like in the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment at Princeton.

 

[Almo]

Why the hell would you want to comparing it to the atmosphere of the Earth? One is made of neutral, homonuclear diatomic molecules, the other is made of plasma. They're different.

He doesn't get it.

My formal education is in physics (BS 1978, MS 1985, California State University at Los Angeles). But most of my professional career has been in atmospheric physics and astrophysics. I retired from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in 2008, a few months shy of the 28 year mark (my last assignment was in the Evolution of Galaxies Group). I worked in the old Radio Astronomy Group studying the atmospheres of the gas giant planets and the plasma environment around Jupiter (Gulkis, et al., 1983; Bolton, et al., 1989). I was a field technician and atmospheric scientist for the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (see the Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document for ASTER Thermal Radiometry Over Land; it was almost finished when I joined the group and verified the radiative transfer software, getting my name on a document that was otherwise already finished before I got there). I was on the technical staff of the Center for Long Wavelength Astrophysics (which lasted for about 5 years before being bureaucratically re-organized out of existence) working on enhanced resolution methods for Spitzer Space Telescope images (Stapelfeldt, et al., 2004; Velusamy, et al., 2008; Pravdo, et al., 2009). I spent my career in technical staff positions, so my chances to co-author published papers were few & far between, but I manged a few reasonable efforts.

I know a fair amount about astrophysics and atmospheres. Cosmology is another matter. I worked & interacted with a lot of the COBE & WMAP & Planck scientists, so I actually know a fair amount about the observational side of the CMB business. But I am not well versed on general relativity, so my knowledge of the theoretical side of cosmology is quite limited. And of course basic physics is what my degrees are all about and I think I have a pretty good handle on a wide array of physics topics.

Why amateur physicists refuse to listen to someone with Tim's experience is beyond me. It was clear before Tim wrote this that he knew what he was talking about because the stuff he wrote made sense.

Study some real physics, not that pretend stuff, then come back.

 

[Tim Thompson]

The return of science by pretty picture?

Your standard of "wispiness", comparing the solar photosphere to Earth's troposphere is extremely unreasonable. Earth's troposphere consists primarily of neutral N₂ and O₂ molecules (which together make up 99% of the entire atmosphere), along with trace smatterings of H₂O, Argon, CO₂, CH₄, and a whole bunch of other semi-irrelevant stuff. Earth's atmosphere is transparent to eyeball light. However, it is as opaque as a "brick wall" to X-rays, gamma-rays, and large chunks of the infrared wavelength region (see Atmospheric electromagnetic opacity diagram courtesy of our old friend Wikipedia).

In the sense that the atmosphere around the Earth is mostly NOT made of plasmas, you're right, it's "opaque" to different (typically higher energy) wavelengths of light as compared to a wispy light hydrogen atmosphere that would be be less likely to interfere with the higher energy wavelengths.

Wrong again. First, look at that diagram I linked to again. Earth's atmosphere is indeed opaque to wavelengths higher in energy then visible light. However, it is also opaque to lower energy wavelengths in the submillimeter & millimeter range, and the very low energy 100-meter & kilometer range. And there is the series of windows of visibility in the thermal infrared (1-10 microns). Second, you have the solar photosphere opacity backwards: No, it will not be less likely to interfere with the higher energy wavelengths; quite the contrary, the plasma of the solar photosphere will be far more likely to interfere with the higher energy wavelengths. That's why the X-ray & gamma-ray emission invariably comes from above the photosphere, never from below.

That's exactly why we see iron ion wavelengths in SDO images, but not in ground based images. That very same issue is exactly why we can observe IRON ION WAVELENGTHS from under the surface of the photosphere because that plasma is already heavily ionized.

All entirely a fabrication of your imagination. We never do, never can and never will see iron ion emission from below the photosphere, not ever, period. The solar photosphere is 100% opaque to those wavelengths.

We can even tell the direction of the FLOW of the material based on the 1600 and 1700A images. It comes from UNDER the surface of the photosphere and it lights up the surface of the photosphere as the hot, highly energized plasma comes up and through that surface.

When did you intend to comment on the movement of mass seen it the 1600 and 1700A images Tim? Why do they look nearly IDENTICAL to that white light Trace image we discussed awhile back?

I have no idea what images you are talking about now, but this entire conversation about the images and X-rays from below the photosphere and highly ionized plasma from below the photosphere, all pure nonsense, is over 2 years old. I made all kinds of posts about it two years ago. You want me to just dig them out and go deja-vu or something? You have something new to add, or are we all going to just cut & paste great moments from the past?

But I can say that I have a clear memory of you claiming to see fully 3-dimensional motion in flat 2-dimensional pictures, with no other supportive evidence for the claim. That said, your claim "It comes from UNDER the surface of the photosphere ... " is nothing but a figment of your over-active imagination.

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15%20April%202001%20WL.gif[/qimg]

The last time I remember seeing this image was over a year ago, when you claimed that image showed a clear depression.

From 19 April 2010:

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15%20April%202001%20WL.gif[/qimg]

Limb images for starters. They all show a clear, persistent angular "depression" in the surface of the photosphere like the foreground sunspot.

No they don't. There is no "depression" of any kind visible in this image.

Are we going back to the bad old days of "science by pretty picture"?

 

[Tim Thompson]

What is "Empirical" Science? (redux) II

You don't seem to comprehend the concept of "empirical" very well.

When we consider that you are the one who has chosen to arbitrarily redefine the entire concept of "empirical" to suit your own prejudice, you are hardly in a position to complain about someone else having problems with "empirical".


From 10 April 2009:

So what we have here is a contest between "observation" and "controlled observation", which is really what a "controlled experiment" is. Now, Mozina's opinion is explicit enough; he says "Observations are not 'empirical experiments' ". It is not much of a stretch to read this as "observations are not empirical" period.

This impacts a wide range of fields of science where "controlled experiments" are usually impossible. Astronomy is one example, where the full complexity of a major astronomical object (planet, star, molecular cloud, galaxy & etc.) cannot be reproduced in any laboratory, ever. But so are zoology, anthropology, and a host of natural sciences affected by the crucial difference between "observations" and "controlled experiments". Are naturalists in the field, observing chimpanzees in the wild, for instance, doing science? Are they doing something "empirical"? If you observe your favorite chimps long enough to predict their behavior, and then observe them to verify the prediction (i.e., to validate the hypothesis), is that not science because it is not "controlled"? Is that not an "empirical experiment" because it is not controlled?

My own opinion is made clear in the exchange above as well, I hope. I think both controlled and uncontrolled observations & experiments are on equal standing when it comes to considering them as "empirical" or "scientific". obviously they are not the same thing, and a "controlled experiment" might well allow the experimenter to more stringently qualify their results than is done with an uncontrolled observation in the field. But that does not detract from the empirical, and experimental nature of an uncontrolled observation.

This seems to me to be a fundamental issue of importance across the scientific spectrum. So I thought it would be worthwhile to make it a topic of its own and solicit the opinions of other scientists (or anyone else who cares to join in) who might not be reading a thread with "Lambda-CDM" in the title. What do you all think? Are "uncontrolled" observations equally empirical, equally scientific, compared to controlled experiments? Do those of you working in areas where field observations are common consider yourselves to be scientists, and that you are doing science?

From 1 February 2010:

Question 2
The standard definition of the word "empirical" does not require a controlled experiment, or for that matter, any kind of experiment at all. Why do you feel justified in changing the definition of a word (any word, but in particular this one), and then complaining when the rest of the world does not use it your way?
For standard usage of the word "empirical", see for instance the definition from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Case in point
I quote from the book An Introduction to Scientific Research by E. Bright Wilson, Jr.; McGraw-Hill, 1952 (Dover reprint, 1990); page 27-28, section 3.7 "The Testing of Hypotheses"; emphasis from the original.

"In many cases hypotheses are so simple and their consequences so obvious that it becomes possible to test them directly. New observations on selected aspects of nature may be made, or more often an experiment can be performed for the test. There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation, but ordinarily in an experiment the observer interferes to some extent with nature and creates conditions or events favorable to his purpose."
​

Wilson says "There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation," and that is the way the entire scientific community currently operates. Are you now telling us that the entire scientific community is using a flawed concept of empiricism?

My question in the 2nd post above, from Feb 2010, has been repeated several times since then. Mozina has ignored in on every occasion, not even acknowledging the the question was ever asked. He also never participated in the 2009 thread on the fundamental nature of science.

 

[ben m]

Remember when Mozina tried to discover how the photosphere could be transparent to keV radiation, and he concluded that the entire photosphere had to be made up of neon? And that the neon had to be hyper-ionized, in violation of thermodynamic and hydrostatic equilibrium, and magically prevented from emitting million-kelvin-like radiation at 16,000,000,000 times the brightness of the Sun?

I forget what came out of that discussion. I think the conclusions were (a) Mozina doesn't know enough physics to have an intelligent discussion of this sort of thing, (b) the iron sun model is really, really, really wrong.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Remember when Mozina tried to discover how the photosphere could be transparent to keV radiation, and he concluded that the entire photosphere had to be made up of neon? And that the neon had to be hyper-ionized, in violation of thermodynamic and hydrostatic equilibrium, and magically prevented from emitting million-kelvin-like radiation at 16,000,000,000 times the brightness of the Sun?

I forget what came out of that discussion. I think the conclusions were (a) Mozina doesn't know enough physics to have an intelligent discussion of this sort of thing, (b) the iron sun model is really, really, really wrong.

But, I'd bet he looks just great in his taylormade Batman uniform.

 

[Michael Mozina]

He doesn't get it.

I really fail to see why you folks feel compelled to discuss *PEOPLE* rather than the topic. Evidently you missed my whole last post to Tim?

Why amateur physicists refuse to listen to someone with Tim's experience is beyond me.

I listen to him and I occasionally learn from him too. I just don't always agree with him. I don't always agree with anyone on every topic. In fact just recently Tim tried to tell me that the EM field isn't kinetic by nature when the carrier particle the EM field is a PHOTON! Tim swore up and down that there weren't any white light images on the CD I suggested he look at too. Just because Tim speaks, does not mean everything that comes out of his mouth is "truth" (TM).

It was clear before Tim wrote this that he knew what he was talking about because the stuff he wrote made sense.

Some of what he says is true and makes complete sense. Some of it does not. Plasmas do in fact act differently than gasses and liquids and solids as it relates to photon interaction. Nobody has denied that fact.

Study some real physics, not that pretend stuff, then come back.

What "real" physics? Alfven called their theories about coronal loop activity "pseudoscience" more than a half dozen times in a room full of "professionals". They didn't listen to him, and I have no illusions that they'll listen to a "mere amateur" either. They'd rather believe in sky entities and pseudoscience than even ENTERTAIN the idea that we live inside of an electric universe. Never mind the fact that Birkeland already simulated and PREDICTED virtually all the key solar activities we see in satellite imagery using "electricity". They want to simply reinvent the wheel and call it "magnetic reconnection". They "pretend" it's not all based on "current" and the movement of current but all their experiments REQUIRE current and "electricity" to make them work.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But, I'd bet he looks just great in his taylormade Batman uniform.

I love how you guys constantly get away with belittling PEOPLE. Worse yet, you personally never discuss the actual TOPIC like Mann's paper, or Alfven's papers. You've never once found any flaw in Alfven's work. Your actions and attitude are pathetic.

 

[GeeMack]

I love how you guys constantly get away with discussing PEOPLE. Worse yet, you personally never discuss the actual TOPIC like Mann's paper, or Alfven's papers. You've never once found any flaw in Alfven's work. Your actions and attitude are pathetic.

Should we dig through the posts and bring up all the responses to Alfvén's papers and Mann's papers and show that the above argument is definitively a lie?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yeah, like in the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment at Princeton.

Your MAGNETIC RECONNECTION claim is a farce. It's really all about CURRENT REDIRECTION and CURRENT RECONNECTION. In fact the experiments don't start to work until the CURRENT flows. Turn off the current, the "magnetic reconnection" ends immediately too. It's a current driven process from start to finish! The term "magnetic reconnection" is pure pseudoscience just like Alfven stated. No magnetic lines actually reconnect in those experiments, the only thing that actually reconnects are CURRENTS.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Should we dig through the posts and bring up all the responses to Alfvén's papers and Mann's papers and show that the above argument is definitively a lie?

Sure. Please show me where you personally or PS found ANY flaw in Mann's paper or ANY of Alfven's papers on solar related topics.

 

[GeeMack]

Your MAGNETIC RECONNECTION claim is a farce. It's really all about CURRENT REDIRECTION and CURRENT RECONNECTION. In fact the experiments don't start to work until the CURRENT flows. Turn off the current, the "magnetic reconnection" ends immediately too. It's a current driven process from start to finish! The term "magnetic reconnection" is pure pseudoscience just like Alfven stated. No magnetic lines actually reconnect in those experiments, the only thing that actually reconnects are CURRENTS.

Arguing without qualification to understand the matter being discussed is, by definition, an argument from ignorance.