(continued)
[...]
DeiRenDopa said:
... but MM is wrong, if only by implication, about how the Birkeland photograph and Yohkoh image are related.
Ya, ya. That what we're *arguing about*.
At its most basic level, the Birkeland simulation fails, in a very big way, because the physical parameters are very different from the physical reality of the Sun, its corona, the sunspots, the magnetic fields, the solar wind, and so on.
In the sense it is "scaled to size", sure, it is "different" than a real sun. In teh sense that he change many of the parameters, including hydrogen to the chamber to create different atmospheric effects, he certainly did make every effort to simulate the atmosphere of space as he understood it to the best of his abilities. [...] He certainly did attempt to "scale" a basic idea, and to simulate the vacuum of space, etc.
Much of this MM post that I am quoting is tangential (at best) to mine.
It is important to keep the scope of my post in mind: how well did Birkeland's simulations (terrella experiments) and his math ('theory', I guess, in MM's terms) match the actual conditions of the real Sun and IPM?
In this part of MM's post, he concedes that simulations need to be scaled somehow, to make them relevant to the real Sun and IPM/solar wind.
Good.
However, the key question is: can such a scaling be done in a manner that is consistent with the math that accompanies the experimental write-up in the Birkeland document, AND with what we now know about the behaviour of atoms, ions, etc (inc. plasmas), AND with the temperatures, densities, compositions, etc of the solar wind (etc)?
Note that it's not enough so simply state - as MM does - that such scaling is necessary.
No, one must actually DO it, and show the consistency I outlined.
As far as I can see, nowhere does MM acknowledge this (if I am wrong, would a reader - preferably MM - say so, and point me to where MM does address this?).
I have never attempted to suggest you could not scale your beliefs to size in a lab. I'm more than happy to let you do that, and change the parameters a bit to "hedge your bets" if you aren't certain of the exact conditions, and the real conditions are known to vary over time.
Well, I must say I wasn't expecting you to be so forthright!
Similarly, the image comparison also fails ... Birkeland did not take images in the soft x-ray waveband;
Sure, there are again "scaling issues" to consider here, but I would not be certain he *never* created x-rays in his lab.
Whether he did, or did not, create x-rays in his lab is irrelevant.
The Yohkoh image is 'taken' in a small band within the soft x-ray region; the Birkeland photographs are taken in the visual (with, possibly, some UV redward of 300 nm).
What he did however is demonstrate that "discharges" follow "curved lines" around the "surface" of the sphere. He talks about how these atmospheric discharges congregate around the "bumps" on the surface of the sphere, and how he gets them to form in the atmosphere and form in "bands" by varying the conditions.
Indeed.
And if that's all he did, his work would be a mere curiosity, but quite useless as science.
You see he set out to show that "
magnetic disturbances on the earth, and aurora borealis, are due to corpuscular rays emitted by the sun", and a vital part of that effort is the 'math', where he tried to show -
quantitatively - consistency between his experiments, what was then known about electrons (etc), and the actual observations.
It follows that if you are insisting that his 'theory' is, at its core, a correct explanation for a wide range of solar phenomena, then you must not only show that there seems to be some correspondence in carefully selected photographs and images, but also that the numbers match too.
It is this quantitative - math, theory - aspect that is both the heart of science and curiously missing in your posts (and on your website).
images of the Sun in the visual waveband taken at the same time as the Yohkoh image look nothing like the Birkeland photograph; the dynamic range of the two images is very different; and so on.
How are they so "different" other than by wavelength? You realize that coronal loops can be observed in many wavelengths, right?
Indeed.
And again, irrelevant.
Birkeland's photographs are in the visual waveband ... and in that waveband the Sun is bland (no loops, no jets, etc).
The Yohkoh images are in the soft x-ray waveband ... and Birkeland has no images in that waveband, nor does he mention what the Sun should like in that waveband.
To repeat: it follows that if you are insisting that his 'theory' is, at its core, a correct explanation for a wide range of solar phenomena, then you must not only show that there seems to be some correspondence in carefully selected photographs and images, but also that the numbers match too.
It is this quantitative - math, theory - aspect that is both the heart of science and curiously missing in your posts (and on your website).
But perhaps MM is (and was) fully aware of these inconsistencies, and addressed them. Perhaps he applied some sort of scaling relationship, that enabled him to conclude that Birkeland's simulations are physically reasonable?
Well, why didn't you just note that point from the start of your post? When have I ever complained about "scaling" anything you that can demonstrate is not a figment of your imagination?
So, where is the scaling work you did?
What equations? What input values? What parameters?
What rationale for the scaling - plasma physics? atomic physics? something else?
And where do you show that it all works out OK?
Ditto, to conclude that the SED of the luminous material in Birkeland's photographs can reasonably be compared with the SED of the soft x-rays in the Yohkoh images?
Why not? Don't you think we could create x-rays in a setup like he built and observe them in such experiments if we vary the conditions properly?
I do not know; do you?
The point isn't that such a demonstration is impossible, or that it MUST produce a conclusive result (i.e. that Birkeland was more wrong than we've so far discussed).
The point is that you seem to have not done any of this work, not mentioned that any of it needs to be done (for a successful case that Birkeland was 'right' to be science), and so on.
Rather, it seems that you jumped from 'looks-like-a-bunny' to 'Birkeland MUST be right!'
And so far nothing you've said suggests otherwise ...
As far as I can see, nowhere does MM mention any of this, beyond this bland statement, from his website (if there is more, would a reader - preferably MM - say so, and point me to where MM does address this?):
(bold added).
I would expect that scaling considerations would be a given.
But, to repeat, you did not do any such work, did you?
Thus, at this stage, I cannot find any objective evidence that falsifies GM's statement (that MM's conclusions re the validity of Bikeland's work - wrt the solar phenomena within scope - rely (almost completely) on "looks-like-a-bunny science"). Can any reader point to any?
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/moss.htm
If you haven't even read Birkeland's work, or addressed Alfven's work on solar issues, I don't suppose you've actually followed any of the links on my website and spent any time actually reading any of the materials I have cited and already offered you?
(bold added)
Well, keep in mind the scope here: how a comparison of a Birkeland photograph with a Yohkoh soft x-ray image establishes anything - by itself - about the relationship between Birkeland's 'theory' and simulations and reality.
The first link, to an arXiv preprint, does not contain any references to any work by Birkeland.
Neither does the second.
Nor does the third.
