A simple test for the EU people. (2)

[Michael]

Again, nothing about that suggests that you have to insult him as the solution.

Fine. What would you suggest?

 

[Michael]

FYI, I have repeatedly requested that Seipai provide us with a *specific* argument to a *specific* peer reviewed paper by Alfven. So far, nothing like that has been forthcoming, and nothing specific has been offered.

 

[Riberra]

Actually the area around the photosphere isn't all that thick which is one of the reasons that Alfven rejected their claims about "frozen in" magnetic lines in such wispy thin conditions. He preferred to describe flare events in terms of circuit theory rather than MHD theory because it's a relatively "thin" solar plasma atmosphere, and the fact it's a "current carrying" environment.

Thanks for clarify this point.I remember reading Alfven saying that every time he have submitted a paper in which he used circuit theory it was refused by peer review because they did not understand the principle.That must be what Seipai calls EU claims made by Alfven which were rejected by peer review in astrophysics ... even if it is now demonstrated that Alfven circuit theory explain solar observations better than the standard astrophysical model .

 

[Seipai]

Thanks for clarify this point.I remember reading Alfven saying that every time he have submitted a paper in which he used circuit theory it was refused by peer review because they did not understand the principle.That must be what Seipai calls EU claims made by Alfven which were rejected by peer review in astrophysics ... even if it is now demonstrated that they explain solar observations better than the current standard astrophysical model .

That was just a weak excuse on Alfven's part. If you cannot defend your idea you don't really understand it. Some of Alfven's work passed peer review, some didn't. He should have been able to defend his own ieas.

Right once does not guarantee that you are right always. Even Newton and Einstein made mistakes. Newton was an alchemists. Einstein did not like quantum dynamics for most of his life.

 

[Riberra]

That was just a weak excuse on Alfven's part. If you cannot defend your idea you don't really understand it. Some of Alfven's work passed peer review, some didn't. He should have been able to defend his own ieas.

Right once does not guarantee that you are right always. Even Newton and Einstein made mistakes. Newton was an alchemists. Einstein did not like quantum dynamics for most of his life.

You have replied while i was editing my post.
In my edit i have pointed out that Alfven circuit theory explain solar phenomena better than the standard solar model .

 

[PsychoSarah]

Fine. What would you suggest?

Not to let frustration get the best of you when dealing with people. Oh, I have been down that road, and what is at the end is not pleasant.

 

[Seipai]

You have replied while i was editing my post.
In my edit i have pointed out that Alfven circuit theory explain solar phenomena better than the standard solar model .

MHD has been used for years in explaining how plasma on the Sun's surface works. It is a dishonest claims by EU people that they don't use his methods.

I don't think that Alfven was a big enough nut that he denied fusion. If so I would like to see a quote of his that said so. The heat from the Sun comes form fusion deep inside. Some EU people even deny fusion. Even though the "missing neutrino problem" has been answered.

 

[Michael]

MHD has been used for years in explaining how plasma on the Sun's surface works.

Ya, quite *unsuccessfully* too I might add.

It is a dishonest claims by EU people that they don't use his methods.

They don't. They use something that Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" to explain ever high energy plasma event. Alfven himself use *circuit* theory, hence the first peer reviewed paper I handed you.

I don't think that Alfven was a big enough nut that he denied fusion.

Ding ding ding, give the man a cookie. I think that's probably the *first* thing you actually got right. Congrats!

If so I would like to see a quote of his that said so. The heat from the Sun comes form fusion deep inside.

Both Alfven and Birkeland believed that the sun was a generator of electrical energy. Alfven assumed it was fusion. Birkeland wrote about the concepts before they had proper scientific terms. He used the term 'transmutation of elements'. Only Juergen's model is *externally* powered by the way. Juergen's rejected Alfven's assumption about fusion being the power source of the sun. That's the key difference between their beliefs in fact.

Some EU people even deny fusion.

I'm certainly not one of them.
[astro-ph/0512633] Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle

I believe fusion occurs in the atmosphere, as well as throughout the sun.

Even though the "missing neutrino problem" has been answered.

Sure, but I wouldn't call it a majority inside the EU/PC community *today*. 15 years ago, sure, but not anymore. Juergen's model peaked in popularity during the missing neutrino days. That's no longer the case.

FYI, virtually *all* the references you cited were criticizing Juergen's solar model, not the model Alfven used, and not the model Birkeland used.

 

[Michael]

That was just a weak excuse on Alfven's part. If you cannot defend your idea you don't really understand it. Some of Alfven's work passed peer review, some didn't. He should have been able to defend his own ieas.

You apparently misunderstand how things went down, so let me fill you in. Alfven *bluntly rejected* magnetic reconnection theory. He literally called the whole concept "pseudoscience", and claimed it was made obsolete and irrelevant in all current carrying environments by his double layer paper. Virtually all MHD theory that is currently used by the mainstream is related to 'magnetic reconnection' theory.

Alfven did not however have any trouble getting his *circuit theory* papers published. He applied circuit theory *everywhere* that astronomers now use 'magnetic reconnection' theory, including solar flares and in the magnetosphere. The paper I handed you on solar flares is one such *peer reviewed* paper.

Alfven didn't have any trouble defending his views, and they work in the lab. That paper on solar flares was peer reviewed and it was published.

Right once does not guarantee that you are right always. Even Newton and Einstein made mistakes. Newton was an alchemists. Einstein did not like quantum dynamics for most of his life.

Sure, but you have never demonstrated he was wrong about anything. You're handwaving away like crazy, but thus far nothing you cited even *relates* to Alfven's work.

 

[Riberra]

I don't think that Alfven was a big enough nut that he denied fusion. If so I would like to see a quote of his that said so.

I think that Alfven model used a mix of solar fusion and electrical activity in the plasma to explain the Sun surface activity ie spicules,the heating of the Sun's corona, the solar wind ,solar flares ...

The heat from the Sun comes form fusion deep inside. Some EU people even deny fusion. Even though the "missing neutrino problem" has been answered.

EU claims is that fusion occurs in the photosphere rather than deep inside the core .

 

[Michael]

Thanks for clarify this point.I remember reading Alfven saying that every time he have submitted a paper in which he used circuit theory it was refused by peer review because they did not understand the principle.That must be what Seipai calls EU claims made by Alfven which were rejected by peer review in astrophysics ... even if it is now demonstrated that Alfven circuit theory explain solar observations better than the standard astrophysical model .

Based on the email list that I'm on, the last few conferences at LMSAL would suggest that their old computer models are failing rather miserably in terms of explaining IRIS images. IRIS shows the individual flux ropes on very small scales, scales that their models simply can't deal with. The best they seem to be able to do is create current sheets in the their models and "assume* that the small thread they're seeing are current sheets from a side angle.

Kosovichev is perhaps the only mainstream author that I've seen actual talk about electric fields in the same way that Alfven did. Virtually everything else I've seen puts the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse.

 

[Michael]

I think that Alfven model used a mix of solar fusion and electrical activity in the plasma to explain the Sun surface activity ie spicules,the heating of the Sun's corona, the solar wind ,solar flares ...

EU claims is that fusion occurs in the photosphere rather than deep inside the core .

That CNO fusion paper I cited for Seipai is worth reading. I do believe that fusion can occur in z-pinch processes in plasma filaments experiencing very strong discharges. This can occur in the corona in fact, but it usually requires a thicker plasma, and a very strong z-pinch IMO.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

 

[Seipai]

I think that Alfven model used a mix of solar fusion and electrical activity in the plasma to explain the Sun surface activity ie spicules,the heating of the Sun's corona, the solar wind ,solar flares ...

EU claims is that fusion occurs in the photosphere rather than deep inside the core .

Very little, if any, of the Sun's fusion activity takes place at the surface. The containment pressures do not exist there. The Sun's surface is where the heat generated in the core of the Sun is eventually radiated off.

 

[Riberra]

Very little, if any, of the Sun's fusion activity takes place at the surface. The containment pressures do not exist there. The Sun's surface is where the heat generated in the core of the Sun is eventually radiated off.

I know that ,but that point out the divergent view from Alfven's model of the Sun which was based on a mix of internal fusion and electrical activity in the plasma versus Juergens model of the Sun based on Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy.
Here Juergens model whose Tom Bridgman and Tim Thompson demolish with fervor.
[FONT=arial,helvetica]Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part I)
Ralph E. Juergens
[/FONT]http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0801-electric-i.htm
[FONT=arial,helvetica]
The Photosphere: Is It the Top or the Bottom of the Phenomenon We Call the Sun?
[/FONT]http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0404-photosphere.htm

 

[Michael]

Very little, if any, of the Sun's fusion activity takes place at the surface. The containment pressures do not exist there. The Sun's surface is where the heat generated in the core of the Sun is eventually radiated off.

That's true. In lighter plasma, it can really only happen in z-pinch processes in high discharge events. The z-pinch process does create enough heat and enough plasma density at the point of the pinch to generate some fusion processes even in the solar atmosphere IMO.

You're right however that most of the fusion is occurring *under* the surface of the photosphere, and probably mostly around the core.

Both Birkeland and Alfven assumed fusion was the power source of the sun, though Birkeland preceded both the discovery of fission and fusion, and used the term "transmutation of elements", and he actually listed fissionable materials as a possible power source.

FYI, only Juergen's model had an "external" power source. Although Alfven allowed for the possibility (and likelihood) of stars being 'wired together' to some degree, Alfven assumed that the standard model was pretty much correct from the core to the surface of the photosphere. He simply added an *electrical* component to atmospheric activity, and circuitry between the photosphere and the heliosphere.