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

[iantresman]

Yes, but here is the deal, if the sun had a charge sufficient to light it up, it would explode at relativistic velocities. There are no charge differentials sufficient to create currents to cause the sun to glow. The solar wind emits both positive and negative particles.

I agree, the Sun has no net charge, and the solar wind has both positive and negative particles.

Quotes, from people do not change the data that contradicts the electric sun, that is the facts.

Indeed.

 

[iantresman]

Although it may look like it, I am not actually defending any of the subjects, only pointing out that some of the criticisms, in my opinion, do not reach the scientific standards which some people are demanding.

Perhaps, then, you are writing this post in the wrong thread?

I don't think. I stand by my comment.

Well, here's your chance iantresman ... start a thread, on "EU/PC", and present what you consider to be material which
a) is physics, in the sense of being quantitative
b) is astrophysics, in the sense of being consistent with the relevant observations

I'll certainly keep that in mind

 

[iantresman]

If there were once scientific "electric sun" theorists (Velikovsky may be as good as you get), Mozina has inherited from them nothing but the particular science words that he arranges his conspiracy around.

As far as I know, Velikovsky did not support the Electric Sun theory.

 

[iantresman]

Suffice to say that I disagree with the wishy-washy notion that the word "pseudoscience" be avoided lest we demonstrate a lack of openmindedness, or perhaps accidentally offend someone. Words are a poor enough means of communication and I think we should use all the words we have.

I've not suggested that using the word pseudoscience implies a lack of openness. The very fact that you, and others are here, and probably prepared to discuss anything, suggest your openness.

I've given my reasons why I don't like the use of the word pseudoscience.

 

[iantresman]

mainstream astrophysicists'[/I] routine use of real plasma physics (including, yes, the MHD approximation) and claiming that this somehow lends legitimacy to plasma cosmology. "Look, our stuff is real physics, we used it to analyze electric fields in the Moon wake. Stop calling my aurora-australis-is-actually-dark-energy theory unscientific."

If I gave the impression that MHD lends legitimacy to other theories, it was not intended. But it is a fact that some of these fringe theories share theories with the mainstream, and MHD is one of them.

 

[ben m]

As far as I know, Velikovsky did not support the Electric Sun theory.

Yes he did. For example,
http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm

which is where his follower, David Talbott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Talbott) got the ideas that went into his books, including "Thunderbolts of the Gods", "The Electric Sky", and "The Electric Universe". What electric sun theory did you think I was talking about?

 

[Reality Check]

I've given my reasons why I don't like the use of the word pseudoscience.

So we have a theory, e.g. plasma cosmology - (note the lower case! This is not the invalidated Plasma Cosmology), which

• states that it is science
• "which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status" (pseudoscience).
  The best thread to see that the plasma cosmology matches these criteria is Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not where the point is made that pc is a collection of often mutally exclusive theories, usually with a common theme that emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory. See my 23rd July 2008 post.

What word would you use to describe plasma cosmology, iantresman?

 

[iantresman]

Yes he did. For example,
http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm

which is where his follower, David Talbott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Talbott) got the ideas that went into his books, including "Thunderbolts of the Gods", "The Electric Sky", and "The Electric Universe". What electric sun theory did you think I was talking about?

Sorry, I couldn't find anything in Cosmos without Gravitation which resembles the Electric Sun.

I also couldn't find anything by David Talbott that attributes the Electric Sun to Velikovsky (perhaps you could provide a reference), though I did find an acknowledgement that he had read Velikovsky, and was inspired to write a book on mythology (ref, PDF)

The only other references I could find seem to attribute the Electric Sun idea to Charles E. R. Bruce and Ralph Juergens (ref), again with no reference to Velikovsky.

And it seems that Donald Scott wrote The Electric Sky, not Talbott.

But I am sure that we are talking about the same Electric Sun theory.

 

[iantresman]

So we have a theory, e.g. plasma cosmology - (note the lower case! This is not the invalidated Plasma Cosmology), which [..]
What word would you use to describe plasma cosmology, iantresman?

We have various people attempting to understand and articulate Plasma Cosmology, which you have designated plasma cosmology (lower case). I'm sure I can find some people who try and understand and articulate Standard Cosmology, which we could call standard cosmology (lower case). I wouldn't call any of them pseudoscience, although I know people who are happy to do so.

Incidentally, regarding the "scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén", is not that of Hannes Alfvén, the Wikipedia article is wrong. eg.

• "The conceptual origins of plasma cosmology were developed during 1965 by Alfvén in his book Worlds-Antiworlds" -- Aside from his book being published in 1966, Alfvén papers can be traced back earlier (ref), and Alfvén himself attributes the theory to Oskar Klein
• During 1971, Klein extended Alfvén's proposals -- No, it was originally Klein's proposal, and they originally collaborated in 1962.

Again, none of these comments implies support for Plasma Cosmology.

 

[Reality Check]

I wouldn't call any of them pseudoscience, although I know people who are happy to do so.

That was not the question: The question is what would you call plasma cosmology?

Would you call it crank science? crackpottery? non-science? something else?

.
Again, none of these comments implies support for Plasma Cosmology.

There is no way that anyone would think that your comments imply support for Plasma Cosmology (whether attributed to Alfven or Klein).
It is a invalidated theory and little to do with the current plasma cosmology (other than the word plasma ).

 

[Dancing David]

I agree, the Sun has no net charge, and the solar wind has both positive and negative particles.

Those both contradict the electric sun theory then. So it is not much of a theory.

 

[ben m]

We have various people attempting to understand and articulate Plasma Cosmology, which you have designated plasma cosmology (lower case). I'm sure I can find some people who try and understand and articulate Standard Cosmology, which we could call standard cosmology (lower case).

Why would you try to draw an equivalence on this point? You're "sure" you can "find some people" who "try"? There is no question whatsoever that standard cosmology is well-defined and clearly articulated; LCDM is a specific theory whose meaning is stated precisely in textbooks, papers, software, Wikipedia articles, etc.. When someone wants to state a variant hypothesis, they write a paper explicitly comparing it to the standard version (cf. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239, http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.0652, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702381, etc., huge number of examples available) which serves as the basis for observational tests.

Meanwhile, I've been trying for years to get Mozina, Sol88, Zeuzzz, etc., to supply an example of one specific, unambiguous tenet of the "plasma cosmology" hypothesis. Is "EM forces explain rotation curves" in the hypothesis? Is "The Universe is infinite, static and everlasting" part of the hypothesis? What should I be comparing to data?

IS there a hypothesis at all, other than "anything is better than dark energy and inflation"?

 

[iantresman]

That was not the question: The question is what would you call plasma cosmology?

Would you call it crank science? crackpottery? non-science? something else?

I would just call it plasma cosmology, and assume that people will apply the scientific method, and let others decided how they want to label it.

 

[iantresman]

I agree, the Sun has no net charge, and the solar wind has both positive and negative particles.

Those both contradict the electric sun theory then. So it is not much of a theory.

I don't know. Show me the original source so I can assess it.

 

[nvidiot]

Have you perchance read this thread and others by Mozina? It takes a while, as some of these threads have been active for years, but it will probably answer any questions you can think of, and quite a few you didn't, regarding plasma physics and solar sciences.

 

[iantresman]

Why would you try to draw an equivalence on this point? You're "sure" you can "find some people" who "try"? There is no question whatsoever that standard cosmology is well-defined and clearly articulated; LCDM is a specific theory whose meaning is stated precisely in textbooks, papers, software, Wikipedia articles, etc.. When someone wants to state a variant hypothesis, they write a paper explicitly comparing it to the standard version (cf. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239, http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.0652, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702381, etc., huge number of examples available) which serves as the basis for observational tests.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to make an analogy between Plasma Cosmology and Standard Cosmology (proper nouns), but between the Cosmology (proper noun) with the cosmology (lower case) as interpreted by others.

The point I was trying to make, was the lay people are poor at describing (even understanding) scientific theory, and may inadvertently give the impression that their descriptions are pseudoscience, when what they are trying to describe, may not be.

 

[iantresman]

Have you perchance read this thread and others by Mozina? It takes a while, as some of these threads have been active for years, but it will probably answer any questions you can think of, and quite a few you didn't, regarding plasma physics and solar sciences.

I admit that I haven't, partly because the impression was given that the quality of the material of some of the participants, wasn't up to standard, so it would make sense to look at original material, rather than its interpretation.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I agree, the Sun has no net charge, and the solar wind has both positive and negative particles.

Those both contradict the electric sun theory then. So it is not much of a theory.

I don't know. Show me the original source so I can assess it.

Assuming you are not joking (are you?), you do realise that this thread *is* the original source!

It's true the MM references his own website - where he presents his ideas concerning the Sun having a rigid (or solid) iron (or iron-compound(s)) surface - but as far as I know the claims he makes for the EST, here, are unique.

Myself, I find it strange that you apparently haven't read this thread, yet feel no shame in making sweeping claims about the scientific merit of its content.

There are, of course, other ESTs; there's one by Scott, for example (called a 'model'), that you are certainly well-informed about. That particular EST posits that the Sun must have an enormous net charge.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Meanwhile, I've been trying for years to get Mozina, Sol88, Zeuzzz, etc., to supply an example of one specific, unambiguous tenet of the "plasma cosmology" hypothesis. Is "EM forces explain rotation curves" in the hypothesis? Is "The Universe is infinite, static and everlasting" part of the hypothesis? What should I be comparing to data?

IS there a hypothesis at all, other than "anything is better than dark energy and inflation"?

This, I think, goes to the heart of the matter.

Most active participants in this thread take the S in the title of this section (Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology) at face value, and will look for correspondence between new ideas presented and physics*. However, in the case of "EU/PC", the ideas have only coincidental correspondences (with physics, etc).

The website in iantresman's sig makes this very clear: to him - and to Sol88, Siggy_G, and several others (but perhaps not Mozina or Zeuzzzz) - this field is demarcated as one would a fan club, or a religious sect. How so? Read on!

That plasma physics plays a big role in contemporary astrophysics should not be a surprise. For example, the 2010 Workshop on Opportunities in Plasma Astrophysics covered topics such as "Dusty Plasmas" and "Jets and Outflow Including Structure Formation", and was attended by hundreds (?) of working scientists.

That electric currents in astrophysical plasmas are the subject of papers published in standard astrophysics journals should also not be a surprise. For example, "Measurement of the Electric Current in a Kpc-Scale Jet" (link takes you to a blog entry discussing this recent paper; check out the foundation work for this!).

Now iantresman's website begins as follows:

The Plasma Universe is a term coined by Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén to highlight the importance of plasma throughout the Universe.
See how much you think you know about cosmic plasma below, and then check out our articles, images and the Plasma Universe Timeline:

From that you'd expect that things like WOPA 2010 and the Kronberg et al. paper would feature, if only indirectly, right?

Well, you'd be sorely mistaken.

You see, that website covers essentially only the ideas of Alfven, Peratt, Bruce, Bostick, and Fälthammar (from the last half century or so); for example, the Second IEEE International Workshop on Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology, in 1993, is the last 20th century conference mentioned in the Timeline page.

(tusenfem has, in an earlier post, provided evidence of a strong tie between avowedly EU advocacy and iantresman).

Is it not thus clear that EU/PC proponents and advocates approach astrophysics in a way that's, um, orthogonal to a science-based one?

You can ask questions like that, ben m, until the cows come home ... but you will never get answers (because, to those JREF members who've posted on such topics and who are EU/PC proponents, your questions are essentially meaningless).

* and/or astrophysics, cosmology, space science, and astronomy.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't know. Show me the original source so I can assess it.

I see so we should consider the EST a possible theory just because it has a name, or because you don't know what it is Ian?

That is strange, the EST is the idea presented by Scott and many including Mozina that an electric current caused by a charge difference between the sun and some sort of interstellar space powers the sun so it shines.

That is contradicted by the facts and you attempt at sophistry shall avail you not.

Any theory that contradicts the data is not a very good theory, why are playing this shell game?