Ya, but personal opinions are a dime a dozen. The fact however is that they're conducting real experiments and getting real experimental results from those experiments.
What is their paper going to be called?
"What happens when you stick a squillion volts through a metallic sphere"?
The video might give you few hints. They seem to generating various elements that weren't originally present in the experiment. I suspect they'll have to eliminate contamination potentials first however, so I wouldn't hold my breath in terms of them trying to publish anything just yet.
I can't see ApJ, A & A, MNRAS et al jumping through hoops to publish that!
I can't see them jumping though hoops to publish anything that includes electricity as a major player. It's the "forbidden topic" in astronomy these days. Anything and everything else is possible but God forbid it includes electricity as a primary process in space.
And it has no relation whatsoever to the Sun. So, what is its point??????
My point is that 100 years ago a sustained hot corona and planetary aurora were shown to be related to circuit theory and electricity in space, and yet that has never been replicated with magnetic reconnection, even with all the advances in physics over the last century.
Really? Show me the predictions of the neutrino counts and spectrum from this fusion. Where is it published?
Well, since Alfven personally preferred the "standard" solar model with some additions of circuit theory near the surface, any "standard" paper should do the trick to support *his* (and probably Peratt's) preferred solar model. Ditto for Birkeland's cathode solar model. He too assumed it was internally powered by a "transmutation of elements" since the term fusion didn't yet exist.
Juergen's anode solar model was originally written during the 'missing neutrino" days of solar physics so I'd assume that he personally envisioned it to predict about 1/3rd of the typical number associated with the standard model. I don't know if he's ever wrote a neutrino paper however. I've never actually looked for one since the missing neutrino days are long gone. Any anode model would need to be updated to include the measured number of neutrinos regardless of how it produces them.
Show me what Scott is doing with the gamma from the chromosphere in his model!
I'd have to "assume" that he'd assume that most of the fusion near the surface takes place *under* the surface of the photosphere. I haven't asked him recently, but that would be the most logical way to deal with it.
Show me how Thornhill is getting p-p chain fusion neutrinos from on or just below the surface. Hint; not hot enough, not dense enough.
Hint: Coronal loops and solar flares *are* dense enough.
Electrical in nature? What is that supposed to mean? It's got plasma in it? We knew that already, thanks.
Except the mainstream model is not based on circuit theory. It's based on "magnetic reconnection" and they've been completely incapable of reproducing something as simple as a sustained hot solar corona or a sustained planetary aurora in a lab based on MR theory, even though it was done a century ago with circuit theory.
Something recent and peer reviewed would be handy.
Ya, I agree which is why the SAFIRE scientists are doing what they're doing.
Assuming anybody has bothered.
We'll have to wait and see what SAFIRE publishes.
Predictions, equations, maths, mechanisms. That sort of thing. How long has this electric sun .............. been going on?
About a century now, and Birkeland included equations, maths, mechanisms and those sort of things, along with a laboratory demonstration of concept. When might I see a laboratory demonstration of concept based on MR theory? Ever?
When were Juergens' scribbles unearthed from the shoe box beneath his bed, and published in the highly scientific (not) Velikovskian Kronos journal? Somebody must have a fully worked out model of the corona by now. N'est-ce pas? No, would be the answer to that, I think you'll find.
Not only have they worked it out, they've also simulated it in a lab based on circuit theory. At least two different EU/PC solar model configurations have been shown to produce a hot corona in a lab now, but it's never been done with MR theory. Why is that?
Nope. The electric sun is nothing to do with PC.
It would depend on how one defines "PC theory" and what solar model one prefers. I personally prefer a cathode solar model, but I'd have to include an anode model under the umbrella of EU/PC theory, even if it's not my preferred model.
It is purely the invention of the Velikosky inspired EU.
The anode model wasn't invented by Velikosky, rather it was first proposed by Ralph Juergens, so clearly your beliefs about EU/PC theory are not even historically correct. You seem to make it up as you go.
I can think of no legitimate scientist who takes that stuff seriously. PC or otherwise.
From my experiences, including my discussions with you, it's very clear that most astronomers don't understand the first thing about EU/PC models (plural), it's history, or it's laboratory underpinnings. It's therefore no surprise that the mainstream isn't particularly interested in it. What they think they know about it is mostly pure nonsense and misinformation, just like your Velikovsky nonsense.
I can think of several "legitimate scientists' that take it seriously, starting with everyone employed in the SAFIRE program.