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

[D'rok]

So how about using the standard method? When did Bruce the sun had a external energy source? Why in your mind *must* an electric sun have a *completely external* power source? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif

Pay attention Michael. He's responding to Haig, who insists that the sun has an external electrical energy source.

Care to up your personal credibility by admitting that this is not a reasonable hypothesis?

 

[D'rok]

No, the situation is in no way similar. We have explored the space around the Sun, in all directions, with spacecraft. We have actually flown right through where those currents are supposed to be, with instruments designed specifically to detect & measure electric currents. Guess what? The currents are not there? That's why the situation is completely different. Direct, in situ observations, clearly show that the currents are not there. If we know that the currents are not there, then why should we rely on them as a power source for the Sun, when we have a perfectly good nuclear alternative? Why is your way better than the standard way?

Now, if that were not enough, how about this? We know, thanks to those spacecraft, that the space around the Sun is filled with a "solar wind" (or "stellar wind"), made up of a roughly equal number of relatively evenly mixed protons & electrons, carrying the solar magnetic field along with them. So how would one get an electric current to flow towards the sun, while it is ramming headlong into the solar wind flowing away from the Sun, carrying along with it a magnetic field, also moving away from the Sun? The answer is that one would not. The physics of electromagnetism, which the "electric Sun" people are supposed to know so well, make it physically impossible for the electric currents they claim are powering the Sun to exist at all.

So, what do we have here? We have direct observations which directly show that the currents are not there. Furthermore, we have very basic physics which shows that the currents cannot be there in any case. Mutual agreement between observation & theory, which mutual agreement directly falsifies the electric Sun hypothesis.

How do your heroes of the electric Sun respond to this?

This is the only post that Haig needs to read. It needs to be repeated every time he attempts an evasive link dump. This must be dealt with.

 

[Ziggurat]

Bruce's discharge theories were applied to a standard stellar fusion model. Whatever you wish to call it, it's still an "EU" orientation from the photosphere outward.

Then it isn't what Haig was talking about, and in fact it isn't what YOU have talked about in the past either.

I haven't shied away from numbers.

Yes you have. I have constantly asked you to provide basic parameters of your own "model", and you constantly fail to.

Somehow it's my personal responsibility to bark math for you on command

Math is the language of physics. I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you (again), but if you can't do the math, you can't do the physics.

You have never, ever, done any math on this message board. Not even simple algebra. Not only will you not do the math you've been challenged to do, you will never include any math to describe your own ideas. You are allergic to math.

By your logic, GR and QM theory must also blow chunks too.

What on earth are you talking about? Both QM and GR are very well-described mathematically. GR in particular is especially math intensive.

You all have this *intense emotional need* to "dumb down" the whole EU concept to treat it in a grossly oversimplied manner.

Oh, the irony.

I'm the one trying to get YOU to use technical descriptions of your ideas (ie, anything quantitative), and you consistently refuse. You're the one who wants to keep it simplified by never providing quantitative details, not me.

I guess you figure you're going to "debunk" every single possible "electric sun" theory with a single line of math in your mind. Sorry, but that is just silly nonsense.

If you want to take "electric sun theory" to mean any theory with electromagnetic fields, then sure, that would be silly. But that describes the standard model too. What Haig (and in fact most EU advocates) suggests is that the sun is largely powered by electricity. And yes, we really can dismiss that notion in a few lines of math. If we couldn't, then you could refute me with a few lines of math.

Well, maybe not you, since you can't do math, but someone.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Pay attention Michael. He's responding to Haig, who insists that the sun has an external electrical energy source.

Care to up your personal credibility by admitting that this is not a reasonable hypothesis?

Well, admittedly I've been preoccupied for the past week....

I personally prefer an *internal* energy source based on what I observe in solar satellite images. It acts more like a cathode than a "unipolar inductor" IMO. That isn't to say that *no* energy comes from an external source.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I get the idea that not one single argument presented by any electric Sun crackpot shows any understanding of anything Alfvén wrote.

Like all of the other ideas you "get" about Alfven's beliefs, they must also be based on clairvoyance since you've never actually read the materials!

After all, his material has been reviewed here in this thread and found to be wholly lacking in support for the nutty notion that the Sun is electric.

Reviewed? You mean like "Circuits? What circuits?"? "Double layers? What double layers?" Oy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Bruce isn't the only electric sun proponent we're talking about, and whether or not it's the only power source doesn't matter, electricity (external OR internal) cannot be an even significant contributor to the power output.

It doesn't have to be! I have *CERTAINLY* talked about Bruce. On more than one occasion I have pointed out that he used a *STANDARD* solar model too in terms of the "power supply".

The numbers don't work by many, many orders of magnitude. But if it's not a significant contributor to the total power output, then we're not talking about an electric sun model, we're still talking about a stellar fusion model, even if it's not the standard stellar fusion model.

There is nothing that precludes an "electric sun" from having a "fusion' power source! You're going to have to accept that concept sooner or later. More importantly, an electric sun is not even limited to a *SINGLE* power source!

But then, just like Haig, you've always shied away from actual numbers. Which is why you've persisted in believing this nonsense for so many years.

FYI, it actually was the the "numbers" (and satellite images) that convinced me personally that the sun is primarily internally powered. Birkeland's power source was also "internally" powered. AFAIK Alfven's theories never precluded there from being an internal power source as well as a "current flow" that included external currents.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Then it isn't what Haig was talking about, and in fact it isn't what YOU have talked about in the past either.

Oh, I have so. I've been talking "flares" now for months and Bruce's work was presented first.

Yes you have. I have constantly asked you to provide basic parameters of your own "model", and you constantly fail to.

I have provided you with *Birkeland's* basic parameters which you consistently fail to accept. Why?

Math is the language of physics. I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you (again), but if you can't do the math, you can't do the physics.

Again, *NO* physics theory rises and/or falls on *my personal* math skills, not QM, not GR, not particle physics theories, not PC theory, and not a cathode sun theory either.

You have never, ever, done any math on this message board. Not even simple algebra. Not only will you not do the math you've been challenged to do, you will never include any math to describe your own ideas. You are allergic to math.

I see no point in doing "busy math" when you refuse to deal with Birkeland's maths, or Alfven's maths, or Lerner's maths, or Peratt's maths. What good would it do for me to bark math for you on command?

What on earth are you talking about? Both QM and GR are very well-described mathematically. GR in particular is especially math intensive.

So is PC/EU theory, but none of you would know that because none of you (except perhaps T) have even bothered to read Alfven's book or Peratt's book or Lerner's book. All of your collective beliefs are evidently based primarily on 'hearsay" information that was obtained clairvoyantly evidently.

I'm the one trying to get YOU to use technical descriptions of your ideas (ie, anything quantitative), and you consistently refuse.

That is absolutely boloney! I have provided *PAPER AFTER PAPER AFTER PAPER* to demonstrate that a "discharge" occurs in a flare. I can't even get you folks to accept simply plasma physics *TERMS*, let alone deal with any of the actual "maths"? Circuits? What circuits? Double layers? What exploding double layers? If you don't like the maths, you simply *IGNORE* them entirely!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Did I write that? NO! Learn to read!
I wrote that at the moment the fusion model is the only model that can explain all observations.

No it does not! Your mainstream fusion model *does not* explain something as *simple* a solar wind even though Birkeland *empirically* "predicted" it over 100 years ago!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sure. For example, if the solar power output was too high for fusion to account for, that would falsify it.

No, you would just have "modified" it to fit just like you do everything else. The lack of the correct number of neutrinos didn't even "falsify" it. Instead they worked to understand *WHY* did it didn't match predictions.

That's not the case, though. But it IS the case that the power output is too high for any electric model to work.

False! The only claim you could make based on your oversimplified maths are that the total power output is too high for *ALL* of the energy to come from an *EXTERNAL* electric power source. That's the only real claim you can make.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I DID NOT ARGUE AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL RATHER THEN THE TOPIC.

Pure baloney and pure denial. Your first two sentences were about *ME*, not the topic. Both sentences included the term "you" for no useful purpose other than to ridicule the *INDIVIDUAL*.

I won't even bother with most of your nonsense and denail, but this statement actually warrants a response.

As tusenfem has pointed out already (1 December 2010) ...

The circuit APPROXIMATION is still used in plasma physics and plasma astrophysics today. The circuit description has never been abandoned.

Then it is a *CORRECT* way of expressing the "maths", just as "correct" as your "magnetic reconnection" theories and maths.

But it cannot deal with "microphysical" processes and so is of necessarily limited value.

That is why Alfven described "exploding double layers" Tim.

You seem to think that if you can just show somebody successfully using a circuit model, then you have struck some kind of blow against the mainstream.

Not at all. You're the one denying there are maths that work in PC theory, but you just admitted that Alfven's circuit orientation is a valid approach!

But in fact, all you are doing is reinforcing the standard model, which explicitly does use (and explicitly always has used) the circuit APPROXIMATION to describe space & astrophysical & geophysical plasma.

Nope. Alfven used the term "circuit" to describe a "current carrying filament". You're calling that same thing a "magnetic line" and claiming "magnetic lines" do the "reconnecting". That's not true. That whole idea is something Alfven himself *explicitly rejected* in current carrying plasmas.

So I have to say I just don't get the point you are trying to make? Are you arguing that the circuit APPROXIMATION is correct?

I'm saying Alfven's "circuit" approach to explaining flares is just as valid as your beliefs in terms of the math.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Math is the language of physics. I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you (again), but if you can't do the math, you can't do the physics.

Again, *NO* physics theory rises and/or falls on *my personal* math skills, not QM, not GR, not particle physics theories, not PC theory, and not a cathode sun theory either.

No one has ever suggested that any physical theory depends upon your personal math skills.

What Ziggurat said is "if you can't do the math, you can't do the physics." Everyone who's been paying attention knows you can't do the math. Consequently, everyone knows you can't do the physics.

That doesn't have anything to do with whether the physics is right or wrong, but it has a great deal to do with whether the beliefs you have expressed in thousands of posts deserve any response beyond laughter.

You have never, ever, done any math on this message board. Not even simple algebra. Not only will you not do the math you've been challenged to do, you will never include any math to describe your own ideas. You are allergic to math.

I see no point in doing "busy math" when you refuse to deal with Birkeland's maths, or Alfven's maths, or Lerner's maths, or Peratt's maths. What good would it do for me to bark math for you on command?

If you could support your opinions with mathematics or actual science, then your opinions might deserve serious consideration. As it is, your opinions remain unsupported by anything but your prejudices.

What on earth are you talking about? Both QM and GR are very well-described mathematically. GR in particular is especially math intensive.

So is PC/EU theory, but none of you would know that because none of you have read Alfven's book or Peratt's book or Lerner's book. All of your collective beliefs are evidently based primarily on 'hearsay" information that was obtained clairvoyantly evidently.

When you are our primary source of "hearsay" information on PC/EU theory, it is natural for us to dismiss that theory. After all, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

That's unfair, of course, because you routinely misrepresent the ideas you advocate almost as much as you misrepresent the ideas you deplore. So it goes.

I'm the one trying to get YOU to use technical descriptions of your ideas (ie, anything quantitative), and you consistently refuse.

That is absolutely boloney! I have provided *PAPER AFTER PAPER AFTER PAPER* to demonstrate that a "discharge" occurs in a flare. I can't even get you folks to accept simply plasma physics *TERMS*, let alone deal with any of the actual "maths"? Circuits? What circuits? Double layers? What exploding double layers? If you don't like the maths, you simply *IGNORE* them entirely!

Because you don't understand the mathematics, you routinely misunderstand the papers you ask us to read.

Dungey's paper is a case in point:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6636179#post6636179
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6636281#post6636281
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6636433#post6636433
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6636473#post6636473
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6637486#post6637486
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6637920#post6637920

I have done the math, calculated the numbers, and can reproduce both Dungey's Figure 1 and Wikipedia's animation of magnetic reconnection directly from Maxwell's equations.

You, however, continue to deny any connection between Dungey's paper and magnetic reconnection. You are basically denying magnetic reconnection. You have done so within the last five minutes:

Nope. Alfven used the term "circuit" to describe a "current carrying filament". You're calling that same thing a "magnetic line" and claiming "magnetic lines" do the "reconnecting". That's not true. That whole idea is something Alfven himself *explicitly rejected* in current carrying plasmas.

If Alfvén rejected magnetic reconnection, then Alfvén was wrong.

Provably wrong, unless you (unlike Alfvén) are willing to dismiss mathematical proofs that take Maxwell's equations as axiomatic.

Magnetic reconnection is a simple consequence of Maxwell's equations. As Dungey noted, magnetic reconnection can occur even in the absence of current carrying plasmas. Of course, magnetic reconnection becomes interesting for solar physics only because of its interaction with plasma physics. You'll never understand that interaction so long as you're denying the fundamental facts of magnetic reconnection.

Of course, your denial of those fundamental facts is rooted in your inability to do math. Without math, you can't understand Maxwell's equations. Without Maxwell's equations, you can't even begin to understand magnetic reconnection.

All you can do is to parrot your heroes, and half the time you don't understand what they wrote either.

 

[GeeMack]

Like all of the other ideas you "get" about Alfven's beliefs, they must also be based on clairvoyance since you've never actually read the materials!

This particular repeated lie is, as always, noted.

Reviewed? You mean like "Circuits? What circuits?"? "Double layers? What double layers?" Oy.

Alfvén's assessment has indeed been reviewed here and found to be totally lacking in any support for the inane conjecture that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs. Obviously the feigned indignation and dishonest misrepresentation of that review fails as an argument.

 

[GeeMack]

Well, admittedly I've been preoccupied for the past week....

I personally prefer an *internal* energy source based on what I observe in solar satellite images. It acts more like a cathode than a "unipolar inductor" IMO. That isn't to say that *no* energy comes from an external source.

Yet no actual numbers have ever been offered as to how much of that energy is internal and how much comes from an external source. There isn't even a quantitative objective explanation as to how those numbers might be derived. No electric Sun proponent has given us anything but a bunch of disconnected wildass guesses. Guesses are not science. There is no electric Sun model. And without some quantitative objective description of such a model, to say one exists is a lie.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No one has ever suggested that any physical theory depends upon your personal math skills.

Evidently since you folks have a lot of math skills, you've decided to judge the value (and sanity actually) of all human beings based upon their personal math skills. Collectively you also tend to judge physics theories you don't like based on how some *amateur* (that you can ridicule) presents the material to you on some message board in cyberspace instead of taking a few months to properly educate yourselves to Alfven's own works, and Birkeland's written materials.

What Ziggurat said is "if you can't do the math, you can't do the physics." Everyone who's been paying attention knows you can't do the math. Consequently, everyone knows you can't do the physics.

This statement is simply a convenient lie for you. Anyone that has been paying attention knows that I *won't* bark math for you (or anyone else) on command in these threads. I absolutely and positively refuse to feed your bizzare belief that my personal math skills are in any way related to the legitimacy of either a cathode sun theory that's a 100 years old now, or a PC theory of cosmology that was written *LONG* before *I personally* became involved with the theory.

I've been through calculus Mr. Spock. I can "follow along" just fine. I don't have to write the maths myself. I don't have to do maths for you on command to demonstrate that those maths are correct. The correctness of those maths has *NOTHING* do with me or my personal maths skills, anymore than GR or QM is dependent upon my math skills.

That doesn't have anything to do with whether the physics is right or wrong, but it has a great deal to do with whether the beliefs you have expressed in thousands of posts deserve any response beyond laughter.

You're essentially laughing at Alfven and Birkeland, not me. Laugh all you want, but unless you have a Nobel Prize sitting on your bookshelf, you really at least should read the materials before passing judgement on them rather than laughing at mere amateurs in cyberspace in some bizarre attempt at personal ego gratification.

If you could support your opinions with mathematics or actual science, then your opinions might deserve serious consideration.

The are not just *MY* opinions. This is like saying *If* I could justify my opinions about QM to your personal satisfaction mathematically *then* (and only then) would QM be a legitimate form of "science".

As it is, your opinions remain unsupported by anything but your prejudices.

Speaking of prejudices, have you actually read Alfven's book or Birkeland's book for yourself yet?

When you are our primary source of "hearsay" information on PC/EU theory, it is natural for us to dismiss that theory. After all, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Ya, but according to you I don't know squat about QM or GR either, but no scientific theory is rises or falls on my skills.

I'll cover the Dungey stuff in a separate post so these two issues don't get lost in huge posts.

 

[tusenfem]

No it does not! Your mainstream fusion model *does not* explain something as *simple* a solar wind even though Birkeland *empirically* "predicted" it over 100 years ago!

Sure it does!

However, as an example that the fusion model cannot explain some things, you come with the solar wind, so I guess I will just have to follow you in your delusion that this is on topic.

The main problem is that there are too many processes that can heat up the corona and we do not know which one is the main player (nano flares, Alfven waves, sound waves .......).

The solar wind is well described by the gas laws, since Parker. But, of course this has nothing to do with whether or not there is fusion in the Sun. Any model for powering the Sun to shine, will have the same difficulties.

Here is a paper by Cranmer et al. (2010). I have only skimmed it, but is seems a good review of what is known today about the topic of coronal heating and SW acceleration.

Birkeland, indeed, predicted that the Sun would emit "corpuscules" of both charges, however, as his terrella out of necessity needs to be either positively or negatively charged, he can never really have "modeled the solar wind" in his experiments. He could show that energetic electrons e.g. could create the aurora. However, (none of) the electric Sun model(s) can explain why there would be equal amounts of postive and negative charge flying away from the Sun. A thing that would be utterly impossible when the Sun would be an anode or a cathode.

However, I am sure you can show us exactly how (one of) the electric Sun model(s) will do that, equal amounts of ions and electrons as equal velocities.

Ahh, wait, I will not get an answer to that, because it is not your model, it is just a model for which you have affinity and think is correct, but are not willing to defend into any detail. Too bad!

 

[Michael Mozina]

This particular repeated lie is, as always, noted.

If you are familiar with the material and you reject it, explain why Alfven's *CIRCUIT* explanation of flares is flawed for us GM.

Alfvén's assessment has indeed been reviewed here and found to be totally lacking

Since you haven't read it, how would you know? What's "lacking"?

in any support for the inane conjecture that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs.

By Peratt's *DEFINITION* (a professional plasma physicist by trade) a flare *IS* a "discharge" even if the "cause" was "magnetic reconnection". Your denial won't make it go away.

Obviously the feigned indignation and dishonest misrepresentation of that review fails as an argument.

The only dishonest person is the critic that never bothered to read the materials in question before going on crusade. "Circuit"? What circuit? Exploding double layer? What double layer?" You can't address the issues since you have not read the material. If I am wrong, demonstrate the error in Alfven's work for us and show us your superior (the Nobel Prize winning scientists) wisdom.

 

[GeeMack]

FYI, it actually was the the "numbers" (and satellite images) that convinced me personally that the sun is primarily internally powered.

It would be foolish, as well as being the antithesis of legitimate science, to suggest that looking at a picture might be a reasonable way to determine the power source for the Sun.

Birkeland's power source was also "internally" powered. AFAIK Alfven's theories never precluded there from being an internal power source as well as a "current flow" that included external currents.

Birkeland's little brass ball in the glass box was not internally powered. It would not only be silly, it would also be a flat out lie to suggest it was. The electromagnet inside the ball was connected by wires to a power supply outside the box. There is nothing about Birkeland's little brass ball or the way its electromagnet was powered that remotely resembles the actual Sun.

 

[GeeMack]

By Peratt's *DEFINITION* (a professional plasma physicist by trade) a flare *IS* a "discharge" even if the "cause" was "magnetic reconnection".

That argument is, of course, another lie. Arbitrarily and dishonestly redefining terms in order to shoehorn someone's research material into allegedly supporting an insane crackpot conjecture is spitting in the face of the researcher. And it's certainly not science by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, you would just have "modified" it to fit just like you do everything else. The lack of the correct number of neutrinos didn't even "falsify" it. Instead they worked to understand *WHY* did it didn't match predictions.

If a theory gets modified to fit the data, it's not the same theory anymore. The original version is falsified. The fact that a similar theory may match the data doesn't mean the theory was not falsifiable.

But "electric universe" ideas are largely unfalsifiable, because they're mostly so vague they're untestable. The few that are testable are mostly already falsified (for example, the 10 billion volt sun). But you still haven't come to terms with that.

False! The only claim you could make based on your oversimplified maths are that the total power output is too high for *ALL* of the energy to come from an *EXTERNAL* electric power source. That's the only real claim you can make.

Not so. The disparity between the total power output and the possible power available from electric sources is so many orders of magnitude that electric sources cannot contribute even a significant fraction to the total power output. Again, you'd know this if you actually looked at the numbers. But you avoid the numbers at all cost, in order to avoid confronting what's really a pretty obvious reality.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have done the math, calculated the numbers, and can reproduce both Dungey's Figure 1 and Wikipedia's animation of magnetic reconnection directly from Maxwell's equations.

You, however, continue to deny any connection between Dungey's paper and magnetic reconnection.

Please quote Dungey where he used the term "magnetic reconnection". I saw him discuss *discharges* that "reconnect".

You are basically denying magnetic reconnection.

Let's both be *really* careful that we don't stick words in each other's mouth's, and be sure you aren't confusing my position with Alfven's position. I don't believe there is any *physical* difference between what you're calling "magnetic reconnection" and "circuit reconnection". Alfven believed (and stated on numerous occasions) that MR theory was "pseudoscience". Are we both clear on the distinction between my position and Alfven?

Before I go any further, I want to make sure we're clear on where I stand vs. where Alfven stands.