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

[ben m]

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.

What original material? This is the problem. Tell us what the "original" material is. For example, there are two Peratt 1986 papers (showing that a simulated plasma formed a disk-like structure looking vaguely like a galaxy) that supposedly are an example of "successful" use of plasmas to describe modern astro observations. This work is terrifically wrong.

Are we supposed to be reading Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened"? That's a primary source, isn't it? We've been there. Ned Wright tears it to shreds, and Lerner's response is unconvincing.

As far as I can tell this has had no impact on PC advocacy whatsover. If you criticize A they say "well, it's a young theory, B has been very successful". If you criticize B they say "well, sure, LCDM has thousands of people working on it, the key point is C". Criticize C and they point you back to A.

Are you, Ian, interested in putting forward a theory that you'll hang your hat on? For what point of cosmological fact are you willing to say "I think X is a better explanation that LCDM, and if it doesn't work it will force me to take LCDM seriously." Name one. I expect to see a paper in which there's a standard statistical-hypothesis-testing comparison between the theory and the data, with error bars on input parameters and a chi^2. I strongly prefer a paper on one of the precision observables: CMB/CMBpol/LSS/BAO/LyA/lensing/BBN/SNe.

Instead of complaining that Mozina isn't defending/advocating PC well, why don't you advocate it yourself? (BTW, if you want to follow up we should move to a different thread. Probably a new one.)

 

[iantresman]

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

OK, I guess that is either part of the problem, or it is accepted that everyone has there own interpretation of the theory, just like a see people asking slightly skewed questions about mainstream astronomy.

 

[iantresman]

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

Absolutely, and it's not a deliberate omission, I just have gotten around to including it. You might also assume that I would then exclude papers that are critical of the Plasma Universe, but I have tried to include them too.

 

[iantresman]

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?

I get the impression that people have different ideas about what EST is. So there is no harm ensuring that we are on the same hymn sheet.

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?

I agree, that does sound like the observations of the Solar Wind contradict the theory, which would imply ions moving in opposite directions.

 

[ben m]

OK, I guess that is either part of the problem, or it is accepted that everyone has there own interpretation of the theory, just like a see people asking slightly skewed questions about mainstream astronomy.

a) yes, maybe the problem is that PC is being communicated badly
b) maybe the problem is that non-PC-experts are forming idiosyncratic interpretations of it

but you skipped the third interpretation:

c) maybe PC is actually a pile of already-falsified nonsense; its supporters are pseudoscientists; so the observed chaotic and inconsistent web-forum-posting is really the best thing PC actually has. Asking for a well-defined and falsifiable PC is like asking for a well-defined and falsifiable theory of alien abductions.

 

[iantresman]

What original material? This is the problem. Tell us what the "original" material is. For example, there are two Peratt 1986 papers (showing that a simulated plasma formed a disk-like structure looking vaguely like a galaxy) that supposedly are an example of "successful" use of plasmas to describe modern astro observations. This work is terrifically wrong.

Are we supposed to be reading Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened"? That's a primary source, isn't it? We've been there. Ned Wright tears it to shreds, and Lerner's response is unconvincing.

As far as I can tell this has had no impact on PC advocacy whatsover. If you criticize A they say "well, it's a young theory, B has been very successful". If you criticize B they say "well, sure, LCDM has thousands of people working on it, the key point is C". Criticize C and they point you back to A.

Are you, Ian, interested in putting forward a theory that you'll hang your hat on? For what point of cosmological fact are you willing to say "I think X is a better explanation that LCDM, and if it doesn't work it will force me to take LCDM seriously." Name one. I expect to see a paper in which there's a standard statistical-hypothesis-testing comparison between the theory and the data, with error bars on input parameters and a chi^2. I strongly prefer a paper on one of the precision observables: CMB/CMBpol/LSS/BAO/LyA/lensing/BBN/SNe.

Instead of complaining that Mozina isn't defending/advocating PC well, why don't you advocate it yourself? (BTW, if you want to follow up we should move to a different thread. Probably a new one.)

I agree with the gist of your points.

I don't have a theory that I'd hang my hat on, because I am not familiar and confident enough with one, but that applies to both mainstream and more fringe theories.

But when I have questions, I will ask.

 

[iantresman]

a) yes, maybe the problem is that PC is being communicated badly
b) maybe the problem is that non-PC-experts are forming idiosyncratic interpretations of it

but you skipped the third interpretation:

c) maybe PC is actually a pile of already-falsified nonsense; its supporters are pseudoscientists; so the observed chaotic and inconsistent web-forum-posting is really the best thing PC actually has. Asking for a well-defined and falsifiable PC is like asking for a well-defined and falsifiable theory of alien abductions.

I think there is an element of all three points, though I wouldn't have described it the same way.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

Still not an answer.
The question is how you would label plasma cosmology, no what its name is.

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

 

[Reality Check]

OK, I guess that is either part of the problem, or it is accepted that everyone has there own interpretation of the theory, just like a see people asking slightly skewed questions about mainstream astronomy.

The problem is that there is no Electric Sun theory!
There are multiple Electric Sun theories, all of which match the criteria for pseudoscience.

 

[Reality Check]

iantresman, Can you cite the source for the one EST that you think exists

I get the impression that people have different ideas about what EST is. So there is no harm ensuring that we are on the same hymn sheet.

iantresman, Can you cite the source for the one EST that you think exists?

That way we can all start (again!) in this thread on the true EST rather than the fantasies of people like Michael Mozina.

ETA
This post

I agree with the gist of your points.

I don't have a theory that I'd hang my hat on, because I am not familiar and confident enough with one, but that applies to both mainstream and more fringe theories.

But when I have questions, I will ask.

suggests that you do not think that there is any valid EST theory.

Is this correct?

I would say that hangin your hat on the mainstream solar model is really obvious because it is actual science rather than the Electric Sun ideas.

 

[iantresman]

Still not an answer.
The question is how you would label plasma cosmology, no what its name is.

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

Yes, it's an answer, but not necessary one that you want. Plasma Cosmology (or even plasma cosmology), like many subjects, can be tested with sciences, even thought some of its proponents may not meet that standard.

The problem is that there is no Electric Sun theory!
There are multiple Electric Sun theories, all of which match the criteria for pseudoscience.

There doesn't not appear to be a definitive Electric Sun theory, but anyone one of them does not become pseudoscience because someone else has their own ideas.

iantresman, Can you cite the source for the one EST that you think exists?

That way we can all start (again!) in this thread on the true EST rather than the fantasies of people like Michael Mozina.

There seem to be several sources that may share ideas, including:

• Ralph Juergens's articles
  
• Don Scott's "Electric Sky/Star/Sun" (Book and Website)
  
• Wal Thornhill's Electric Sun (website) (book)

And during my cursory search, just turned up:

• Kinwah Wu et al, "An electrically powered binary star?", Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 331 (link is to preprint)

That way we can all start (again!)

I'll pass on that, but should more focussed questions occur to me, I'll ask them in a new thread.

 

[ben m]

Yes, it's an answer, but not necessary one that you want. Plasma Cosmology (or even plasma cosmology), like many subjects, can be tested with sciences, even thought some of its proponents may not meet that standard.

Science doesn't test vague concepts. It tests hypotheses. Are there specific hypotheses that we should recognize as testable, scientific components of plasma cosmology?

(I have no idea what you think the capitalization means.)

There seem to be several sources that may share ideas, including:

• Ralph Juergens's articles

• 
  
  Ah, yes, the extremely valuable electric-sun ideas that a random retired civil engineer left behind which were posthumously published in his own Velikovskyist journal. This work is already falsified, it assumes that the Sun has a huge DC voltage, which you agree is wrong.
  
  Why list it? Science is allowed to discriminate against wrong ideas. When you ask someone "what are the big questions in nuclear theory these days", they don't start with Time Cube and the plum-pudding model. They start with the stuff that's not complete crap.
  
  

  [*]Don Scott's "Electric Sky/Star/Sun" (Book and Website)
  Wal Thornhill's Electric Sun[/URL] (website)

Yes, the two more idiots who think the Sun is powered externally by a giant electric current that isn't there, flowing down a voltage that isn't there. Whether it's science or pseudoscience, it's wrong. Why be coy, Ian? You're allowed to say it: "These authors are totally wrong."

And during my cursory search, just turned up:

• Kinwah Wu et al, "An electrically powered binary star?", Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 331 (link is to preprint)

And here we go with the Mozina problem. You've been maintaining a plasma-cosmology web page for how long, Ian? You're an expert, of sorts, on the plasma-cosmology subculture and the people and things that happen in it? But when someone asks you, in your capacity as a representative of that subculture, to clarify the question of what are the beliefs and interests relevant to understanding it, you do a "cursory search" and report whatever pops up? That's not helpful.

This is a mainstream astrophysics paper. It's a (mainstream) hypothesis about how (mainstream) magnetic induction might be affecting a particular white dwarf binary system. It bears no relationship whatsoever to the Scott, Thornhill, Juergens, etc. hypotheses that the Sun---our own Sun---is not powered by fusion. (White dwarfs are never powered by fusion, anyway; they just radiate away their residual heat. Binaries may have accretion-powered hot spots.) As we've been saying on this board for years: mainstream astronomy knows about plasma physics and Maxwell's Equations and uses them appropriately. What makes you plant the "electric sun" flag on this one, as opposed to (say) any random solar-physics paper that mentions magnetic fields?

Or is the "electric sun" theory, then, "the set of theories that come up in a Google Scholar search for 'star AND electr* "?

 

[Reality Check]

iantresman, how would you label plasma cosmology

Yes, it's an answer, but not necessary one that you want. Plasma Cosmology (or even plasma cosmology), like many subjects, can be tested with sciences, even thought some of its proponents may not meet that standard.

Wrong: It is not an answer to my question.

The question is how you would label plasma cosmology, not what its name is.

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

Plasma cosmology cannot be 'tested with sciences' because plasma cosmology does not exist.
The often mutually exclusive theories arbitrarily collected under the umbrella of plasma cosmology can be tested with science and are mostly invalid as stated in my original post about what you would call it:

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.

There doesn't not appear to be a definitive Electric Sun theory, but anyone one of them does not become pseudoscience because someone else has their own ideas.

Wrong

1. The lack of a definitive Electric Sun theory makes the very concept of a Electric Sun theory pseudoscience because it does not exist !
2. The proposed 'electric sun theories' that I have seen are pseudoscience.

There seem to be several sources that may share ideas, including:

• Ralph Juergens's articles
  
• Don Scott's "Electric Sky/Star/Sun" (Book and Website)
  
• Wal Thornhill's Electric Sun (website) (book)

And you prove that the electric sun theory is pseudoscience by citing mutually exclusive (Scott & Thornhill) theories that have been shown to be invalid.

The Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy blog has several excellent aricles debunking Scott and Thornhill
​

The Ralph E. Juergens citations are rather dumb - opinion pieces in a journal that published articles from Immanuel Velikovsky !

The actual science in the articles is ridiculous (or at least ridiculously outdated as in 30 years old), e.g. Juergens asserts that the Sun is not powered by fusion but

• We know (now) that the Sun emits the amount of neutrinos that we expect from enough fusion to explain its energy output.
• We have known for decades that the gamma radiation from the Sun is not produced by fusion.
• Thus the Sun is powered by fusion happening in its core (where gamma rays can be scattered into other frequencies) exactly as predicted from the laws of physics regarding a ball of hydrogen gas.

A pointer for you, iantresman: Never cite a journal like Kronos if you want to be taken seriously.

And during my cursory search, just turned up:

• Kinwah Wu et al, "An electrically powered binary star?", Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 331 (link is to preprint)

You need to read the papers you cite instead of a kneejerk citation because they have the word electric in them. This paper is about 'stellar binary systems consisting of a magnetic and a non-magnetic white-dwarf pair'.

You do know that the Sun is not a white-dwarf?
You do know that the Sun is not a binary star?

 

[Dancing David]

I get the impression that people have different ideas about what EST is. So there is no harm ensuring that we are on the same hymn sheet.

Nope, you want to pretend that EST is coherent and , you haven't read it, and its authors, is not our duty. Your lack of knowledge is not a defense.

MM and Scott are on tehe act same page.

Tour sophistry shall avail you not.

I agree, that does sound like the observations of the Solar Wind contradict the theory, which would imply ions moving in opposite directions.

It would say that ions only flow one way per charge, negative one way, positive the other. So no mixed solar wind.

 

[Dancing David]

I agree with the gist of your points.

I don't have a theory that I'd hang my hat on, because I am not familiar and confident enough with one, but that applies to both mainstream and more fringe theories.

But when I have questions, I will ask.

Um Ian, your web page belies your statement here, why are you engaging in mistruth? You present Perrat's nonscalable experiments on your wen page, so why are you now denying that?

Perrat's study was 10 cm, and used huge magnetic fields, it is in no way comparable to reality.

How do teh parameters in Peratts simulation have any bearing on reality, what were the field strengths, alleged charge flows, magnetic fields, you know, this one:

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Image:Peratt-galaxy-simulation.gif

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, it's an answer, but not necessary one that you want. Plasma Cosmology (or even plasma cosmology), like many subjects, can be tested with sciences, even thought some of its proponents may not meet that standard.

Nme some that do meet the standard and are not directly contradicted by the data?

 

[iantresman]

(I have no idea what you think the capitalization means.)

Reality Check had introduced this idea in this post.

Ah, yes, the extremely valuable electric-sun ideas that a random retired civil engineer left behind which were posthumously published in his own Velikovskyist journal.

I thought you promoted science, rather than resorting to sarcasm and guilty by association. I haven't asked you for details of your Ph.Ds in cosmology, and plasma astrophysics.

This work is already falsified, it assumes that the Sun has a huge DC voltage, which you agree is wrong. Why list it?

I was asked to provide some sources, not to provide sources which I stand by, and will defend with my hat.

Science is allowed to discriminate against wrong ideas.

That doesn't involve pseudoscientific criticisms like guilty by association, and "being retired"!

Yes, the two more idiots who think the Sun is powered externally by a giant electric current that isn't there, flowing down a voltage that isn't there.

If this is the best of your criticism, then it does make me doubt the quality of your scientific arguments.

Ben, I did not provide sources as facts to be defended. I think your comments on a charged sun were better, but I did not provide that either.

 

[iantresman]

A pointer for you, iantresman: Never cite a journal like Kronos if you want to be taken seriously.

I was asked to provide some sources, not peer-reviewed sources. And as I mentioned to Ben_m, I did not provide sources as facts to be defended. My other sources included a website and some book. In fact there were no peer reviewed pieces.

There is no dispute that there are no peer-reviewed material on the Electric Sun.

I like you earlier descriptions, some of them are merely "opinion pieces".

 

[iantresman]

Nope, you want to pretend that EST is coherent, and , you haven't read it, and its authors, is not our duty. Your lack of knowledge is not a defense.

I hearby do solemnly swear, that EST is not a coherent theory. Shall I get the statement notarised? Submit to a lie-detector test?

Are you sure this is a science-based forum? I must try out the "lack of knowledge is not a defense" on my son.

You present Perrat's nonscalable experiments on your wen page, so why are you now denying that?

I'm lucky I didn't choose to write about the Politburo, I feel like McCarthyism has come to town because it must mean I'd be a Communist!

 

[iantresman]

Perrat's study was 10 cm, and used huge magnetic fields, it is in no way comparable to reality.

How do the parameters in Peratts simulation have any bearing on reality, what were the field strengths, alleged charge flows, magnetic fields, you know, this one:

We do seem to be unfocussed in our discussions (and I do mean we). I'm sure his work has been discussed elsewhere on JREF before, but I can also suggest that just as would be required of myself, that where statements are made, that citations are provided.