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

[Michael Mozina]

Calls like that put Tim Donaghy in prison.

Cute.

 

[Dancing David]

By 'third' charge, I presume that you mean neutral atoms and/or neutrons. From the standpoint of empirical laboratory physics, you actually have that backwards. Birkeland EMPIRICALLY predicted both types of charged particles to come from the sun and he wrote about that process over 100 years ago. You might take a gander at my sig line sometime. That's a quote directly from his book. He already empirically predicted that process. In fact, I think I'll add that to my "list" of empirical correlations between "electrical discharges" and the release of both types of charged particles from the sun (not to mention a mechanism to explain neutral particles). "Electrical discharges" have been associated with 7 of 7 key solar flare observations. Your wimpy alternative still scores only one point. FYI, I actually felt sorry for your lowly empirical weakling of a theory so I pretty much just GAVE you that point.

I asked you for this data in the past and you never provided it, so where is this experimental data MM, not some statement made by some one.

But the actual data that shows a cathode putting out positive, neutral and negative charges? Where is it?

So where is it MM, I am not rude to you so save your bluster and hyperbole, just provide your experimental evidence. You forgot I have been polite and respectful to you, I am asking you to show how a cathode would produce the solar wind.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I asked you for this data in the past and you never provided it, so where is this experimental data MM, not some statement made by some one.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf

I suggest you begin reading at page 659 and again at 716, section 138.

Today the process would be called 'sputtering'. He conducted a series of experiments related to that process starting on page 716, section 138.

But the actual data that shows a cathode putting out positive, neutral and negative charges? Where is it?

Check it out on the pages that I suggested.

So where is it MM, I am not rude to you so save your bluster and hyperbole, just provide your experimental evidence.

I'm sorry DD, you're absolutely right, I was unnecessarily rude, especially to you. I'm sorry.

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf

I suggest you begin reading at page 659 and again at 716, section 138.

Today the process would be called 'sputtering'. He conducted a series of experiments related to that process starting on page 716, section 138.

Where is the current research MM, I ask you in seriousness.

You said that the sun is a cathode and so I ask you , how then does it produce the three types of particles, negative, positive and neutral.

Your server bogged, I can't read that now, so where is the current data?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Where is the current research MM, I ask you in seriousness.

You said that the sun is a cathode and so I ask you , how then does it produce the three types of particles, negative, positive and neutral.

Your server bogged, I can't read that now, so where is the current data?

I doubt it bogged, it's just a 158Meg file! Be patient David. It will be worth the wait.

 

[Reality Check]

I doubt it bogged, it's just a 158Meg file! Be patient David. It will be worth the wait.

Dancing David, The Birkeland book is an interesting insight into the history of science. It shows an incredibly good experimental physicist at work.
However it has nothing to do with modern solar physics and contains many errors that have been corrected since it was written.
The only things that have remained correct are

• His treatment of the Earth's aurora as the interaction of a solar wind and the Earth's magnetic field.
• The existence of that solar wind.

At no point does Birkelend propose a solar model. He does suggest that the Sun is an emitter of electrons (a cathode). But later statements that the solar wind is made of electrons and ions implies that he changes his mind after writing the book.

Note that MM has a record of being mistaken about this book: Michael Mozina's delusions about Birkeland's work.

 

[Reality Check]

Today the process would be called 'sputtering'. He conducted a series of experiments related to that process starting on page 716, section 138.

So what is section 138?

138. It is a circumstance in my planet-theory which has given me much trouble, as it looked at first as though the planets, if formed, would come to revolve the wrong way round the central body. I considered it at first most probable that the material particles expelled by disintegration from the negative-electric central body, took with them a negative charge.

This is his theory that the planets were created from the solar wind. This is wrong.

In these experiments he uses a palladium cathode and notes that he gets palladium deposited on the walls of the chamber and on mica screens within the chamber.

 

[GeeMack]

I asked you for this data in the past and you never provided it, so where is this experimental data MM, not some statement made by some one.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf

I suggest you begin reading at page 659 and again at 716, section 138.

Today the process would be called 'sputtering'. He conducted a series of experiments related to that process starting on page 716, section 138.

Starting at page 659 is a bunch of guessing about Saturn and how its rings are caused by the planet spewing corpuscles into space. His speculation on this matter ultimately turned out to be wrong. Very, very wrong. So wrong it would be laughable, in a pitiful sort of way, if someone were to suggest we give it serious scientific consideration today. And entirely irrelevant to this discussion in general and the question about "experimental data, not some statement made by some one" in particular.

But the actual data that shows a cathode putting out positive, neutral and negative charges? Where is it?

Check it out on the pages that I suggested.

In section 138 Birkeland does not provide any actual data that shows a cathode putting out positive, neutral and negative charges. It's a chapter essentially speculating that electrons are ejected from the Sun... and turn into planets.

So where is it MM, I am not rude to you so save your bluster and hyperbole, just provide your experimental evidence. You forgot I have been polite and respectful to you, I am asking you to show how a cathode would produce the solar wind.

I'm sorry DD, you're absolutely right, I was unnecessarily rude, especially to you. I'm sorry.

At the end of section 138, the section where Birkeland presents his conjecture about the planets being formed by the Sun spewing electrons, he says he has failed to support the conjecture that electrons leaving the cathode could account for the heat of the Sun...

We have not yet succeeded, however, in spite of continual experiments, in producing a proof that by this extended radio-activity chemical elements might be transformed into one another, or that heat was developed by the disintegration of a cathode, in the same way as when radium is transformed. The last question would acquire a fundamental importance in the problem of the heat-store and longevity of the sun and stars.

So the reference to the Birkeland book is, as always, a wild goose chase. No experimental data showing "a cathode putting out positive, neutral, and negative charges". It's just a statement made by someone, and only that if we seriously convolute what Birkeland actually wrote. And he concluded that an electric Sun was not supported by his experiments.

 

[Dancing David]

So MM, what is the data, just tell me, and why it support a tri part solar wind.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So MM, what is the data, just tell me, and why it support a tri part solar wind.

FYI, I'm not sure what you mean by "what is the data" exactly, so if I don't address your question properly, let me know, I'll try again.

The "data" in terms of the actual solar wind makes it very clear that the sun is in fact "disintegrating" just as Birkeland's cathode model predicts. The solar wind is mostly electrons, protons and highly charged helium since they are the "lightest" of the positively charged ions. Not coincidentally, He+2 is more prevalent than He+1.

It would also be logical to expect that some of the exiting electrons and protons will pair up again as they flow through the solar system.

FYI, Birkeland's theory also "predicts" a Parker spiral. Since protons have an opposite charge from electrons, they flow outwardly at the equator in different directions. The flow of the particle is determined by it's charge according to Birkeland. He lays out all the math in terms of the particle movement near the back of the book. Fascinating stuff actually.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No experimental data showing "a cathode putting out positive, neutral, and negative charges".

That is a blatant lie. Then again, what's new?

 

[GeeMack]

I asked you for this data in the past and you never provided it, so where is this experimental data MM, not some statement made by some one.

But the actual data that shows a cathode putting out positive, neutral and negative charges? Where is it?

I suggest you begin reading at page 659 and again at 716, section 138.

Today the process would be called 'sputtering'. He conducted a series of experiments related to that process starting on page 716, section 138.

Check it out on the pages that I suggested.

At the end of section 138, the section where Birkeland presents his conjecture about the planets being formed by the Sun spewing electrons, he says he has failed to support the conjecture that electrons leaving the cathode could account for the heat of the Sun...

[...]

So the reference to the Birkeland book is, as always, a wild goose chase. No experimental data showing "a cathode putting out positive, neutral, and negative charges". It's just a statement made by someone, and only that if we seriously convolute what Birkeland actually wrote. And he concluded that an electric Sun was not supported by his experiments.

No experimental data showing "a cathode putting out positive, neutral, and negative charges".

That is a blatant lie. Then again, what's new?

No, it is not a lie. On and around page 659 Birkeland isn't considering the Sun. It's some nonsense about Saturn's rings being electrons spewed from the planet, nonsense we know to be false. And in section 138 there is no experimental data showing "a cathode putting out positive, neutral, and negative charges". That is what Dancing David asked for. It's not there. There's some speculating, some guessing, some supposing, and some wondering. There is some dabbling with how the cathode gives up some of its material, and done in an effort to show that Saturn spews electrons to make its rings and the Sun spews electrons to make planets. It does not contain experimental data showing "a cathode putting out positive, neutral, and negative charges". But it does, however, quite unequivocally conclude...

We have not yet succeeded, however, in spite of continual experiments, in producing a proof that by this extended radio-activity chemical elements might be transformed into one another, or that heat was developed by the disintegration of a cathode, in the same way as when radium is transformed. The last question would acquire a fundamental importance in the problem of the heat-store and longevity of the sun and stars.

... that the experiments described weren't able to account for an electric model of the Sun or stars. Asking people to read a book and hoping they'll misunderstand it, too, is sending them on a wild goose chase. Declaring that Birkeland meant some particular thing while not actually understanding what the material says is an argument from ignorance.

 

[Dancing David]

FYI, I'm not sure what you mean by "what is the data" exactly, so if I don't address your question properly, let me know, I'll try again.

The "data" in terms of the actual solar wind makes it very clear that the sun is in fact "disintegrating" just as Birkeland's cathode model predicts. The solar wind is mostly electrons, protons and highly charged helium since they are the "lightest" of the positively charged ions. Not coincidentally, He+2 is more prevalent than He+1.

It would also be logical to expect that some of the exiting electrons and protons will pair up again as they flow through the solar system.

FYI, Birkeland's theory also "predicts" a Parker spiral. Since protons have an opposite charge from electrons, they flow outwardly at the equator in different directions. The flow of the particle is determined by it's charge according to Birkeland. He lays out all the math in terms of the particle movement near the back of the book. Fascinating stuff actually.

What data exactly is there MM that a cathode will cause of a 'wind' of the three kinds of particles.

You know like charge up a cathode and show that it is emitting something like the solar wind?

 

[Dancing David]

That is a blatant lie. Then again, what's new?

Then where is the data about a cathode emitting high velocity particles of the three charges?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Then where is the data about a cathode emitting high velocity particles of the three charges?

It's found on the pages I suggested. Did you read them?

 

[Dancing David]

It's found on the pages I suggested. Did you read them?

So no recent lab data MM? No one other than Birkeland?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So no recent lab data MM? No one other than Birkeland?

I would think that any paper on "sputtering" would do, but I'm finding this paper particularly interesting at the moment:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0410239

Keep in mind that Birkeland expected the solar wind to contain pretty much equal numbers of both charged particles.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://books.google.com/books?id=8G...EwAQ#v=onepage&q=sputtering birkeland&f=false

Better yet, try 21.2.3

 

[GeeMack]

You know like charge up a cathode and show that it is emitting something like the solar wind?

Then where is the data about a cathode emitting high velocity particles of the three charges?

I would think that any paper on "sputtering" would do, but I'm finding this paper particularly interesting at the moment:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0410239

Keep in mind that Birkeland expected the solar wind to contain pretty much equal numbers of both charged particles.

http://books.google.com/books?id=8G...EwAQ#v=onepage&q=sputtering birkeland&f=false

Better yet, try 21.2.3

So no data at all showing "a cathode emitting something like the solar wind" or "high velocity particles of the three charges" as requested. At least not in any sort of objective way. Unless maybe it's just a matter of not understanding the material referenced, which would make it an argument from ignorance since it doesn't objectively support the claim.

 

[ben m]

Sputtering????

First you insist that Birkeland had a solar model we should read, and now you've backed off to "read any paper on sputtering"? What sort of engine do you have on those goalposts?

I've done a fair amount of sputtering work over the years and I see no reason whatsoever to connect it to the solar wind.