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

[GeeMack]

So what's it going to be t? Which is it?

It looks like tusenfem has already stated his position...

I have already discussed discharges found in various books. The discussion is pointless, as the name is not important, it is the actual physics that is important. But MM wants to keep that discussion going on, because then he does not have to think about anything else.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Indeed. On page 720, Volume 1 of Birkeland's "Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition", he very specifically writes that his experiments didn't bear out an electric Sun conjecture...

​

Perhaps there are those who believe otherwise, but they obviously aren't familiar with Birkeland's work. Or possibly they have severely misunderstood it. But any way about it, even though he may have dabbled with some interesting conjectures about the Sun and planets, Kristian Birkeland, by his own admission, did not have a viable solar model.

You and RC are a like twin ministers of disinformation. He *CORRECTLY* predicted the energy source of the sun and correctly predicted it had an internal power source.

All that statement demonstrates is that in his personal experiments to that date and time, he had not *YET* personally succeed in "transmuting" any elements from on form to another, thereby releasing energy in the process. He did however correctly predict that the process would release energy! Holy cow!

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have already discussed discharges found in various books. The discussion is pointless, as the name is not important, it is the actual physics that is important.

In the sense that the physics is in fact important, sure, but there's a conceptual aspect at stake that even you seem to be trying to ignore.

But MM wants to keep that discussion going on, because then he does not have to think about anything else.

You don't want to accept it because I don't NEED anything else to explain the behaviors of a double layer. Alfven already did that for us. The moment you accept that a discharge takes place through a double layer, Alfven's model applies, and your MR theory becomes irrelevant and unnecessary.

I therefore stated that I accept any definition for the term discharge that MM wanted, and henceforth refrained from actually using the term discharge in any scientific way, unless the general term asks for the use of the word, like a "glow discharge" which I cannot be responsible for.

In other words, the fact that I don't need your MR theory is in the first place will be avoided at all costs. You will never deal with it.

 

[GeeMack]

You and RC are a like twin ministers of disinformation. He *CORRECTLY* predicted the energy source of the sun and correctly predicted it had an internal power source.

All that statement demonstrates is that in his personal experiments to that date and time, he had not *YET* personally succeed in "transmuting" any elements from on form to another, thereby releasing energy in the process. He did however correctly predict that the process would release energy! Holy cow!

In the quote provided he wrote unambiguously that the experiments under discussion did not support a conclusion of an electric Sun... "in spite of continual experiments." Birkeland, by his own admission, was unable to demonstrate that they could account for the thermal issue, and therefore he did not have a viable solar model.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In the quote provided he wrote unambiguously that the experiments under discussion did not support a conclusion of an electric Sun... "in spite of continual experiments." Birkeland, by his own admission, was unable to demonstrate that they could account for the thermal issue, and therefore he did not have a viable solar model.

No, that's only half the story. He correctly predicted that the sun had an internal power source that involved the transformation of elements from one form to another that would release energy in that transformation process. He NAILED that fact LONG before anyone else even came close! He simply admits that he was personally unable to unambiguously recreate the process himself in the lab to that point in time. You're still in pure denial of historical fact.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No one expects you to demonstrate any mathematical expertise.

If you had the slightest competence in this subject, you'd have acknowledged the many explicit solutions of Maxwell's equations you've been given in which magnetic reconnection occurs with an E field of zero or close to zero.

Your whole assumption is based on a logical fallacy Mr. Clinger. Alfven had your math skills and certainly understood those equations as well as you do. He rejected the idea continuously till the day he died. It's therefore a BS concept that mathematical prowess has anything to do with this choice.

You think tusenfem is a rank amateur like yourself?

No, I assume he gets paid, which is why HE should be the one busting RC's chops, not me. The fact he doesn't says volumes. Haters are all alike. It's a mob mentality, and the science becomes irrelevant.

Knowing Alfvén's and Peratt's names (and skimming their books without understanding the math) does not place you in tusenfem's company.

Well, at least I've read them which puts me way ahead of you and GM and RC and all the rest of the lazy couch potato commentators around here.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In the quote provided he wrote unambiguously that the experiments under discussion did not support a conclusion of an electric Sun... "in spite of continual experiments." Birkeland, by his own admission, was unable to demonstrate that they could account for the thermal issue, and therefore he did not have a viable solar model.

By your logic, the standard model isn't a "viable model" either because nobody has ever demonstrated a sustained fusion process in the lab.

 

[GeeMack]

No, that's only half the story. He correctly predicted that the sun had an internal power source that involved the transformation of elements from one form to another that would release energy in that transformation process. He NAILED that fact LONG before anyone else even came close!

Ancient societies that believed the light and heat of the Sun was caused by some sort of fire were thousands of years ahead of Birkeland on that. There's absolutely nothing new or novel about the idea that the Sun burns, and there wasn't 100 years ago. Apparently Kristian Birkeland was barely able to explain the thermal characteristics of the Sun any better than the ancients who guessed it was some kind of fire.

He simply admits that he was personally unable to unambiguously recreate the process himself in the lab to that point in time. You're still in pure denial of historical fact.

The historical fact appears to be that Birkeland, despite his dabbling with the brass balls and electromagnets, was unable to develop a viable solar model.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

No one expects you to demonstrate any mathematical expertise.

If you had the slightest competence in this subject, you'd have acknowledged the many explicit solutions of Maxwell's equations you've been given in which magnetic reconnection occurs with an E field of zero or close to zero.

Your whole assumption is based on a logical fallacy Mr. Clinger. Alfven had your math skills and certainly understood those equations as well as you do. He rejected the idea continuously till the day he died. It's therefore a BS concept that mathematical prowess has anything to do with this choice.

You're just assuming I'm assuming, and you're wrong. You're also assuming you understand what Alfvén was rejecting, and you're wrong about that also.

The reason you're assuming instead of reasoning is that you don't have the "mathematical prowess" to work through freshman-level exercises in electromagnetism.

If you knew enough math to get through freshman physics, you'd know how easy it is to do the math for the simple experiment I suggested that demonstrates magnetic reconnection without plasma and with an E field whose strength never exceeds a threshold you can set arbitrarily close to zero.

If you understood how easy it is to do that math, you'd have assumed I did the math before I suggested the experiment, and you'd assume that Alfvén would not have gotten that math wrong. If you could do the math yourself, you'd understand that the mathematical consequences of Maxwell's equations are perfectly clear on this point, and you'd realize that you've been misinterpreting Alfvén's use of the word "pseudoscience" to criticize a thing he himself had promoted: the frozen-in concept, which leads to a non-Maxwellian concept of magnetic field lines, which leads to an incorrect theory of magnetic reconnection.

You would also understand that Alfvén explicitly acknowledged the legitimacy and potential relevance of magnetic reconnection, although he was skeptical about its applicability to solar physics.

As it is, however, you can't do the math and don't understand how easy it is for the rest of us to do that math. That's why you continue to deny the facts, using pseudo-arguments such as word and paper counts:

Pfft. Clinger found only a SINGLE line from ONE paper where Alfven claimed that MR theory had not been proven to that point in time, and he utterly ignored he speech from 10 years later where he called it pseudoscience more than a 1/2 dozen different times. The whole lot of you can't even come up with A SINGLE SUPPORTING PAPER written by Alfven. As a group, you have yet to find any flaw in any of his circuit oriented papers related to these very same topics where you claim that MR theory applies.

I don't listen to ignorant people that are scientifically lazy, who refuse to read the appropriate materials, and who refuse to do their homework. If he actually supported MR theory, where's Alfven's paper on this topic? There isn't one!

You intended for that highlighted phrase to describe us, but it's a much better description of Michael Mozina. If you weren't so lazy, you'd have learned the freshman- and sophomore-level mathematics needed to understand Maxwell's equations and to read the relevant papers (including Alfvén's) at a less superficial level. Lacking the necessary math skills, you remain ignorant, misinterpret the appropriate papers while misrepresenting inappropriate papers, and refuse to do relevant homework that's been suggested to you: working through simple exercises and performing simple experiments.

 

[Tubbythin]

You and RC are a like twin ministers of disinformation. He *CORRECTLY* predicted the energy source of the sun and correctly predicted it had an internal power source.

Michael, can you tell me of any notable scientists circa 1900, who thought the power of the Sun came from external sources?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, can you tell me of any notable scientists circa 1900, who thought the power of the Sun came from external sources?

I think it was Jergenson(?) who proposed an external power source and evidently that's the *one* version that you folks always seem to associate with an 'electric sun'.

Care to accept the fact that his prediction of exothermic transformation of elements was correct? It's not like he didn't have a viable working model folks.

If you're going to toss out his model, you better toss out your own model while your at it. Since nobody has ever demonstrated sustained fusion reactions, your model is absolutely toast, whereas sustained fission has been demonstrated and that technically also works for Birkeland since he actually mentions radioactive elements by name. His prediction of exothermic transmutation of elements works for fusion or fission.

 

[Tubbythin]

I think it was Jergenson(?) who proposed an external power source and evidently that's the *one* version that you folks always seem to associate with an 'electric sun'.

Ok. Anybody else? You made it sound as if Birkeland was a visionary for proposing an internal source when, to the best of my knowledge, that has been the 'assumption' for hundreds of years.

Care to accept the fact that his prediction of exothermic transformation of elements was correct?

Errm... which elements was he transmuting from what to what? How was that transmutation taking place?

It's not like he didn't have a viable working model folks.

He didn't have a viable working model.

If you're going to toss out his model, you better toss out your own model while your at it. Since nobody has ever demonstrated sustained fusion reactions, your model is absolutely toast, whereas sustained fission has been demonstrated and that technically also works for Birkeland since he actually mentions radioactive elements by name. His prediction of exothermic transmutation of elements works for fusion or fission.

Sure it works... if you throw out the entirety of the standard model of particle physics... and explain why the Sun - and the universe in general - is largely composed of hydrogen and helium. In other words it doesn't work in the slightest.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're just assuming I'm assuming, and you're wrong. You're also assuming you understand what Alfvén was rejecting, and you're wrong about that also.

Oh baloney. I've quoted him plenty of times. You folks just won't accept the fact that he rejected it ENTIRELY inside of a current carrying plasma and oh, ya, the whole universe is composed of current carrying plasma. The only time he ever accepted the concept is as a pseudonym for current sheet acceleration, the same thing he describes in his double layer paper. He effectively makes your theory obsolete and unnecessary, effectively nailing shut the coffin on that form of pseudoscience for all time.

The reason you're assuming instead of reasoning is that you don't have the "mathematical prowess" to work through freshman-level exercises in electromagnetism.

Sure attack the messenger some more Clinger, that will surely help. Too bad for you that Alfven demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that mathematical prowess is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT. I guess you'll continue to rationalize in your mind that by tearing me down personally, you don't have to deal with Alfven's double layer paper. Oh well. Denial seems to be the name of the game around here.

If you knew enough math to get through freshman physics, you'd know how easy it is to do the math for the simple experiment I suggested that demonstrates magnetic reconnection without plasma and with an E field whose strength never exceeds a threshold you can set arbitrarily close to zero.

At a ZERO point there's NO ENERGY! So what if you get a couple of zero points to "connect"? You can't get infinite energy from zero.

If you understood how easy it is to do that math, you'd have assumed I did the math before I suggested the experiment, and you'd assume that Alfvén would not have gotten that math wrong. If you could do the math yourself, you'd understand that the mathematical consequences of Maxwell's equations are perfectly clear on this point, and you'd realize that you've been misinterpreting Alfvén's use of the word "pseudoscience" to criticize a thing he himself had promoted: the frozen-in concept, which leads to a non-Maxwellian concept of magnetic field lines, which leads to an incorrect theory of magnetic reconnection.

Of course you're in hard core denial of the fact that he rejected it in EVERY CURRENT CARRYING ENVIRONMENT and he also MADE IT UNNECESSARY with his double layer paper. Other than that, sure you're in fine shape there Mr. Clinger.

You would also understand that Alfvén explicitly acknowledged the legitimacy and potential relevance of magnetic reconnection, although he was skeptical about its applicability to solar physics.

BS. The only time he ever even made a positive quote about the idea is when he called it a pseudonym for the work he describes in his double layer paper. That is the only reason I've personally been willing to compromise with you and call it "current reconnection'. In fact when we look at your laboratory "experiments" you actually reconnected two field aligned *BIRKELAND CURRENTS*! Talk about bait and switch! Your entire industry should be sued for false advertizing IMO. It's damn clear from your "scientific experiments" that "currents" do the "reconnecting", not two dumbed down magnetic lines.

As it is, however, you can't do the math and don't understand how easy it is for the rest of us to do that math.

Who give a damn even if that is true? When did GR theory or Alfven's writing rise and fall on my personal math skills? You guys are PATHETIC. If you didn't attack the individual, you'd have nothing to say.

 

[Tubbythin]

Who give a damn even if that is true? When did GR theory or Alfven's writing rise and fall on my personal math skills? You guys are PATHETIC. If you didn't attack the individual, you'd have nothing to say.

They don't. However, your personal claims about GR and Alfven's work do rise and fall on your personal maths skills.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ok. Anybody else? You made it sound as if Birkeland was a visionary for proposing an internal source when, to the best of my knowledge, that has been the 'assumption' for hundreds of years.

How about the fact he proposed the correct WAY to get energy?

He didn't have a viable working model.

Then neither do you because you can't demonstrate a sustained fusion reaction. Sustained fission processes occur NATURALLY ON EARTH!

Sure it works... if you throw out the entirety of the standard model of particle physics... and explain why the Sun - and the universe in general - is largely composed of hydrogen and helium. In other words it doesn't work in the slightest.

Oh bull! This is just sad from my perspective. You can't demonstrate fusion processes sustain themselves "naturally". You can't even demonstrate half of the claims you make about your own theories. Get real.

The irony is that had I personally be trying to take credit for anything you folks would be stuffing Birkeland's work down my throat. It really doesn't matter what I say, you're all hell bent on engaging in pure hater mentality. Deny, ignore, and deny some more.

 

[Michael Mozina]

They don't. However, your personal claims about GR and Alfven's work do rise and fall on your personal maths skills.

No. If you had evidence that Alfven published any work in support of MR theory, you'd provide it and the math would be included in the paper. It's a pity for you that he made the concept "unnecessary" and "obsolete" inside of any current carrying double layer, effectively nailing the coffin shut on your precious pseudoscience.

 

[Tubbythin]

How about the fact he proposed the correct WAY to get energy?

I dunno. You had him talking about a cathode Sun the other day.

Then neither do you because you can't demonstrate a sustained fusion reaction.

We have all the components and all the observational data. We don't have sustained fusion because we don't have the conditions of the Sun. This is trivially obvious. If we did have sustained fusion here it wouldn't be much like the Sun anyway.

Sustained fission process occur NATURALLY ON EARTH!

It occurred naturall on Earth. And it has always led to the emission of the wrong kind of neutrinos.

Oh bull! This is just sad from my perspective. You can't demonstrate fusion processes sustain themselves "naturally". You can't even demonstrate half of the claims you make about your own theories. Get real.

It is demonstrable that the neutrinos emitted from fission are different from those emitted by the Sun. That is more than enough to categorically rule out beyond all shadow of a doubt the idea that the Sun's output is sustained by nuclear fission.

The irony is that had I personally be trying to take credit for anything you folks would be stuffing Birkeland's work down my throat. It really doesn't matter what I say, you're all hell bent on engaging in pure hater mentality. Deny, ignore, and deny some more.

Of course it matters what you say. If you make claims you can support people will consider your points seriously. If you claim everybody else is wrong or ignorant or a religious because they don't agree with your claims which you can't support then people will tell you why your claims are wrong. If you continue to make the same claims which have been shown to be false time and time again people will get less and less polite.

 

[Tubbythin]

No. If you had evidence that Alfven published any work in support of MR theory, you'd provide it and the math would be included in the paper.

I don't really care whether he did or he didn't. It doesn't matter who published what. The laws of the physics do not care. Alfven's words are not immutable.

It's a pity for you that he made the concept "unnecessary" and "obsolete" inside of any current carrying double layer, effectively nailing the coffin shut on your precious pseudoscience.

Huh? Seriously Michael? What are you talking about? And what makes you think Alfven's work is immutable. You clearly cannot evaluate the relevant maths for yourself.

 

[Michael Mozina]

We have all the components and all the observational data. We don't have sustained fusion because we don't have the conditions of the Sun. This is trivially obvious. If we did have sustained fusion here it wouldn't be much like the Sun anyway.

And that doesn't work for Birkeland because.....????

It occurred naturall on Earth. And it has always led to the emission of the wrong kind of neutrinos.

Since they change flavors, it's not altogether clear what that proves or disproves. You folks sat on neutrino "mysteries" for 50 years. I'm allowed a decade or two to see how your experiments play out.

It is demonstrable that the neutrinos emitted from fission are different from those emitted by the Sun. That is more than enough to categorically rule out beyond all shadow of a doubt the idea that the Sun's output is sustained by nuclear fission.

So what? Even so, fusion is NOT ruled out and his theories are INCLUSIVE of both types of energy release mechanisms.

Of course it matters what you say. If you make claims you can support people will consider your points seriously. If you claim everybody else is wrong or ignorant or a religious because they don't agree with your claims which you can't support then people will tell you why your claims are wrong.

Yes, but Mann and Onel demonstrated that circuit theory explains flare events just fine, but none of you seem to accept a circuit *DISCHARGE* theory. In fact you folks act exactly like a cult, including the constant personal attacks (not by you personally mind you). It's still a pack mentality.

If you continue to make the same claims which have been shown to be false time and time again people will get less and less polite.

I guess I feel a lot less "polite" about the fact that electrical discharges happen in plasma now too, expecially after providing 100 years of evidence in support of that theory, including Birkeland's original lab work, Dugey's work, Peratt's work, Alfven's work, etc, etc, etc. After awhile the pure denial process gets a little old.

 

[Tubbythin]

And that doesn't work for Birkeland because.....????

We don't have all the components?

Since they change flavors, it's not altogether clear what that proves or disproves. You folks sat on neutrino "mysteries" for 50 years. I'm allowed a decade or two to see how your experiments play out.

They change from electron to muon to tau. For them to spontaneously and simultaneously all change from neutrino to anti-neutrino or vice-versa would require throwing out the whole of the standard model.

So what? Even so, fusion is NOT ruled out and his theories are INCLUSIVE of both types of energy release mechanisms.

So the Sun is powered by fusion that's what.

Yes, but Mann and Onel demonstrated that circuit theory explains flare events just fine, but none of you seem to accept a circuit *DISCHARGE* theory. In fact you folks act exactly like a cult, including the constant personal attacks (not by you personally mind you). It's still a pack mentality.

I don't think anyone really knows what you mean. Your definitions are extremely fluid.

I guess I feel a lot less "polite" about the fact that electrical discharges happen in plasma now too, expecially after providing 100 years of evidence in support of that theory, including Birkeland's original lab work, Dugey's work, Peratt's work, Alfven's work, etc, etc, etc. After awhile the pure denial process gets a little old.

You're not making meaningful claims. You've come up with a meaningless definition of breakdown which includes almost everything and a definition of breakdown such that completely opposite situations both fall under the name!