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

[dasmiller]

I'm just pointing out that stars have some very unusual behaviors that might have something to do with the interstellar medium they happen to be traversing at the moment. Passing through a more dense (or less dense) regions of interstellar space may in fact generate unusual solar wind patterns and unusual light emission patterns as well.

So, would EU/PC predict that extragalactic stars should be dimmer than we'd expect from their mass? And that stars within nebulae would be brighter than we'd expect based on mass? (or vice-versa, I suppose) This would seem to be an easily testable prediction.

I'd think that, since the interstellar medium doesn't generally come within many AU of the star, the interstellar medium would have a very limited impact on the star's behavior. Regardless of PC vs. conventional cosmology.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1999_05/

FYI Haig,....

You might want to take a look at the three days in question in Lasco C3 images.

http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1999_05/990510_c3.mpg
http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1999_05/990511_c3.mpg
http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1999_05/990512_c3.mpg

I'm not sure if the second link will work directly, but you look at the items designated _C3 for the three days in question. You'll notice that the sun is in a very *active* mode during that period of time, far more active than today for instance. While the sun's wind may not have been striking Earth during that timeline, the C3 images will show you that the solar wind was indeed very active in other areas around the sun.

 

[GeeMack]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

Three (almost 4) days now and counting and still you haven't rescinded your false claims? Since everyone knows you haven't read Alfven's work, you won't discuss his circuit approach to MHD theory, and you refuse to acknowledge your own blatant mistakes, do you really think anyone is taking you seriously anymore?

Bolded to emphasize the persistent personal attack and complete lack of addressing the topic at hand. That particular dishonest tantrum has been dealt with numerous times, most recently in post #1213.

The thread isn't about me, and it isn't about the barrage of off-topic, uncivil, personal attacks directed at me. This thread is about the inane crackpot claims that solar flares are electrical discharges and that the Sun is powered by electricity. Those claims so far have been supported only with badgering, taunting, and uncivil personal attacks like the one in the post quoted above, bald faced lies, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and various other logical fallacies, arguments by proxy (copying and pasting chunks from other web sites in lieu of expressing one's own thoughts), and by the silly grade school non-science argument of pointing at pretty pictures.

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

We are waiting for this claim to be supported scientifically, objectively, and quantitatively. And if it can't be done, the proper thing to do, from a position of scientific integrity and honesty, is to admit that it can't be supported.

 

[GeeMack]

http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1999_05/

FYI Haig,....

You might want to take a look at the three days in question in Lasco C3 images.

http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1999_05/990510_c3.mpg
http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1999_05/990511_c3.mpg
http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/1999_05/990512_c3.mpg

I'm not sure if the second link will work directly, but you look at the items designated _C3 for the three days in question. You'll notice that the sun is in a very *active* mode during that period of time, far more active than today for instance. While the sun's wind may not have been striking Earth during that timeline, the C3 images will show you that the solar wind was indeed very active in other areas around the sun.

Argument by pointing at pretty pictures and completely lacking any objective quantitative substance is noted.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Bolded to emphasize the persistent personal attack and complete lack of addressing the topic at hand.

Nope. *YOU* made a (false) claim. You refuse to acknowledge that your previous statement is a false claim. There is no way to have a logical discussion with you. It's your claim, your problem, and your denial process that is directly at issue. The topic is irrelevant at this point because you are in pure denial of the physical evidence that demonstrates that *YOUR* statement is false.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

This time just answer the question "honestly".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Argument by pointing at pretty pictures and completely lacking any objective quantitative substance is noted.

That constant irrational aversion to observation is noted.

 

[GeeMack]

Nope. *YOU* made a (false) claim. You refuse to acknowledge that your previous statement is a false claim. There is no way to have a logical discussion with you. It's your claim, your problem, and your denial process that is directly at issue. The topic is irrelevant at this point because you are in pure denial of the physical evidence that demonstrates that *YOUR* statement is false.

(My bolding.) The topic is not me. And the topic is not irrelevant. The topic is...

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

We have yet to see any objective quantitative support for the claim that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges. We have seen much well supported, fully cited, objective, and quantitative evidence for the notion that such an inane claim is impossible. We have yet to see any objective quantitative support for the claim that the Sun is powered by electricity. We have seen much support, again well evidenced, fully cited, objective, and quantitative, to show that particular ridiculous claim is impossible.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(My bolding.) The topic is not me. And the topic is not irrelevant. The topic is...

Denial. You're absolutely right, it's not related to you personally. Creationist do it all the time. Denial however is a pathological behavior that transcends any specific scientific topic. People do it all the time. Unfortunately *NO* amount of evidence presented can even make them budge an inch from their position because it's an "all or nothing" proposition in their mind.

If after presenting all this quantified mathematical evidence from Bruce, from Birkeland, from Alfven (which you won't even read or comment on) or Dungey, or Peratt, etc, you refuse to even acknowledge that fact that an electrical discharge at least *occurs* in flares, what is there to discuss? I have no confidence that you have any desire to have any real scientific discussion. Every time I mention Alfven's use of circuits you avoid the topic.

We have yet to see any objective quantitative support for the claim that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges.

We (as in you and I) will never get there until you acknowledge that your prior statements were false and that electrical discharges occur *IN* flares. Once you've taken a baby step or two we can move on to Alfven's real material, but at the moment you and I have nothing to discuss.

In fact I"m really baffled as to why you even got involved in my original discussion of solar flares. You haven't read or commented on any of the relevant materials by Alfven. You won't acknowledge Peratt's *definition* of an electrical discharge in a plasma. You won't even acknowledge that an electrical discharge *CAN* occur in a plasma! It's clear that you have no relevant expertise on this topic in terms of Alfven's materials on flares, so I entirely baffled as to why you even got involved in this topic. Care to elaborate on what makes you an expert on Alfven's views of solar physics?

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

I'm still waiting for a direct answer to this question. When did you intend to provide one?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Starting late on May 10 and continuing through the early hours of May 12, NASA's ACE and Wind spacecraft each observed that the density of the solar wind dropped by more than 98%. Because of the decrease, energetic electrons from the Sun were able to flow to Earth in narrow beams, known as the strahl. Under normal conditions, electrons from the Sun are diluted, mixed, and redirected in interplanetary space and by Earth's magnetic field (the magnetosphere). But in May 1999, several satellites detected electrons arriving at Earth with properties similar to those of electrons in the Sun's corona, suggesting that they were a direct sample of particles from the Sun.

"This event provides a window to see the Sun's corona directly," said Dr. Keith Ogilvie, project scientist for NASA's Wind spacecraft and a space physicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD. "The beams from the corona do not get broken up or scattered as they do under normal circumstances, and the temperature of the electrons is very similar to their original state on the Sun."

FYI Haig, keep in mind that the electron beams they observed were actually "predicted" by Birkeland over 100 years ago. It's also directly related to my sig line. During Birkeland's experiments, parts (atoms) of his terella ended up on the sides of the walls of this experiments. He expected/predicted narrow beams of electrons to come off the cathode and strike the Earth and drive aurora. He also realized that positively charged ions would also fly into space and he wrote about it and his experiments. You might read through them some time. It takes awhile to work through them, but once you get the idea, it's pretty interesting (and still relevant) stuff.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, would EU/PC predict that extragalactic stars should be dimmer than we'd expect from their mass? And that stars within nebulae would be brighter than we'd expect based on mass? (or vice-versa, I suppose) This would seem to be an easily testable prediction.

You know, I've been thinking about that question all day (well since you posted it), and I don't really have a valid answer for you.

 

[Perpetual Student]

You know, I've been thinking about that question all day (well since you posted it), and I don't really have a valid answer for you.

How could you? It would require some mathematics.

 

[GeeMack]

FYI Haig, keep in mind that the electron beams they observed were actually "predicted" by Birkeland over 100 years ago. It's also directly related to my sig line. During Birkeland's experiments, parts (atoms) of his terella ended up on the sides of the walls of this experiments. He expected/predicted narrow beams of electrons to come off the cathode and strike the Earth and drive aurora. He also realized that positively charged ions would also fly into space and he wrote about it and his experiments. You might read through them some time. It takes awhile to work through them, but once you get the idea, it's pretty interesting (and still relevant) stuff.

Of course it has nothing to do with the silly idea that the Sun is powered by electricity or that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges. The Sun isn't hooked up to any wires, obviously. We make a trip all the way around it about once a year, and we've been looking into space with telescopes for just over 400 years now. Those wires have been, to say the least, pretty darned elusive. But if a crackpot notion can't be supported by legitimately objective and quantitative evidence, any old argument that avoids scientifically addressing the actual topic is as good as any.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How could you? It would require some mathematics.

It also requires a physical understanding of the differences between intragalactic conditions and extragalactic conditions, something I personally know very little about. I'm not ashamed to admit my own ignorance. Sometimes "I don't know" is simply a more honest answer. Math had nothing to do with it actually.

Of course since you haven't read Alfven's materials or at least you've not commented on them, I guess the only thing you can do is bash the messenger. How sad.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Of course it has nothing to do with the silly idea that the Sun is powered by electricity or that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges. The Sun isn't hooked up to any wires, obviously.

FYI, in case you haven't heard, the wireless transfer of electrical energy was first demonstrated by Nikola Tesla in the 1800's.

 

[GeeMack]

FYI, in case you haven't heard, the wireless transfer of electrical energy was first demonstrated by Nikola Tesla in the 1800's.

Birkeland's terrella was a hollow brass ball with an electromagnet inside. It was connected to the power source using wires. It had nothing to do with a wireless transfer of electricity. It would be a lie to suggest it does.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Birkeland's terrella was a hollow brass ball with an electromagnet inside. It was connected to the power source using wires. It had nothing to do with a wireless transfer of electricity. It would be a lie to suggest it does.

Oy Vey.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Oy Vey.

Brilliant response! Why didn't we think of that?

 

[Perpetual Student]

It also requires a physical understanding of the differences between intragalactic conditions and extragalactic conditions, something I personally know very little about. I'm not ashamed to admit my own ignorance. Sometimes "I don't know" is simply a more honest answer. Math had nothing to do with it actually.

Of course since you haven't read Alfven's materials or at least you've not commented on them, I guess the only thing you can do is bash the messenger. How sad.

There are tens of thousands of things I have not read (Aristotle's Physics, for example). Although, old papers and books may contain some insights, I know that there are more reliable modern sources for a layman like me. Science is a continually progressing body of knowledge; clinging to sacred texts is a hallmark of religion, not science.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Brilliant response! Why didn't we think of that?

Why should I worry about a brilliant response when I can't get you two to even comment on the relevant materials like Alfven's use of circuits?

You two aren't even creative IMO. You keep irrelevantly fixating on my math skills and he keeps stuffing his response with the terms "lie", "crackpot", "crank" or "dishonest". Between the two of you it's one non stop personal attack that is completely devoid of any scientific substance or scientific response. Why did Alfven describe these same solar events using "circuits" and exploding double layers?