Plasma Cosmology in 2019-2020

[Michael]

 

[Ophiolite]

Rearrange these words into a well known phrase or saying:

Horse A Dead Flogging

 

[Michael]

Rearrange these words into a well known phrase or saying:

Horse A Dead Flogging

In the case of PC theory however, the horse is quite alive.

 

[Ophiolite]

In the case of PC theory however, the horse is quite alive.

And in poor lighting conditions you can't even see the strings that are used to animate it.

I maintain my view that your introduction of of a thread or two on Plasma Cosmology every year or so is a welcome contribution to interesting discussion in this section of the forum. However, your endless submissions of threads on the subject and your ongoing pollution of other members threads with the topic, regardless of its relevance is not welcome. It is rude, it is discourteous, thoughtless, counter-productive and unacceptable. If the moderator team performed in a competent, professional manner you would have been shut down for this behaviour long ago.

 

[Michael]

It's being taken *very* seriously and studied very seriously to this day.

https://www.patreon.com/posts/special-feature-29656772

 

[Smithi]

It's being taken *very* seriously and studied very seriously to this day.

https://www.patreon.com/posts/special-feature-29656772

No it is not. And I don't see what that has got to do with Plasma Cosmology. What did Alfven think was the power source for the Sun? What do Peratt and Lerner think? Verschuur? Can't think of any more. This sounds more like the amusing stuff believed by a handful of neo-Velikovskians.

 

[Smithi]

Chortle. So according to the lawyer Davidson, dust is hiding the currents! Love to know how that works! Hint: it doesn't.

 

[Michael]

No it is not.

The results, and even the experiments themselves say otherwise.

And I don't see what that has got to do with Plasma Cosmology. What did Alfven think was the power source for the Sun?

Fusion, just like every EU/PC solar model I can think of, including the anode model of the sun. The anode model however does allow for some energy to come into the sun from the circuits of the universe, but it still produces fusion locally.

What do Peratt and Lerner think? Verschuur?

Probably the same thing that I think, specifically that it's mostly powered by internal fusion, but the atmospheric aspects (like the corona) are entirely electrical in nature.

Can't think of any more. This sounds more like the amusing stuff believed by a handful of neo-Velikovskians.

Sounds like you made that up too.

 

[Smithi]

The results, and even the experiments themselves say otherwise.

I very much doubt that! What is their paper going to be called?
"What happens when you stick a squillion volts through a metallic sphere"?
I can't see ApJ, A & A, MNRAS et al jumping through hoops to publish that! And it has no relation whatsoever to the Sun. So, what is its point??????

Fusion, just like every EU/PC solar model I can think of, including the anode model of the sun. The anode model however does allow for some energy to come into the sun from the circuits of the universe, but it still produces fusion locally.

Really? Show me the predictions of the neutrino counts and spectrum from this fusion. Where is it published? Show me what Scott is doing with the gamma from the chromosphere in his model! 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.

Probably the same thing that I think, specifically that it's mostly powered by internal fusion, but the atmospheric aspects (like the corona) are entirely electrical in nature.

Electrical in nature? What is that supposed to mean? It's got plasma in it? We knew that already, thanks. Something recent and peer reviewed would be handy. Assuming anybody has bothered. Predictions, equations, maths, mechanisms. That sort of thing. How long has this electric sun .............. been going on? 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.

Sounds like you made that up too.

Nope. The electric sun is nothing to do with PC. It is purely the invention of the Velikosky inspired EU. I can think of no legitimate scientist who takes that stuff seriously. PC or otherwise.

 

[Michael]

And in poor lighting conditions you can't even see the strings that are used to animate it.

At least in EU/PC theory those are 'empirically real' strings, not "dark" invisible ones. We have some hope of finding the strings.

I maintain my view that your introduction of of a thread or two on Plasma Cosmology every year or so is a welcome contribution to interesting discussion in this section of the forum.

Well, prior to a few weeks ago, it had been awhile since I started such a thread here.

However, your endless submissions of threads on the subject....

I think you're including threads which were originally intended to be exclusively related to discussions of the LCDM model that are essentially hijacked by LCMD proponents to include discussions of EU/PC theory when I had no such original intention. That's not all my fault.

and your ongoing pollution of other members threads with the topic, regardless of its relevance is not welcome.

Can you cite an example (thread) where I personally introduced EU/PC theory into any other member's thread recently? I don't recall doing that.

 

[Michael]

I very much doubt that!

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.

 

[Smithi]

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.

Nope. Sticking a squillion volts through a metal sphere is reproducing nothing of interest.

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'm not holding my breath full stop! The 'experiment' is a complete waste of time and money. I'll look out for the results in 'Dog Breeder's Weekly'.

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.

Yawn. Change the record. You are making stuff up again.

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.

Lol. No, we have observed MR in action on the Sun! Not good enough for the unqualified, hmmm?

 

[Smithi]

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.

Birkeland didn't have a model. Alfven died way back, so cannot comment on the current state of affairs. Falthammar is excited about MR in solar flares!

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.

Juergens was an EE. He had no idea about astrophysics. His model was a joke. An unpublished joke. And not only would any alernative model have to predict the neutrino number, it would have to predict the energy spectrum. I'm seeing nothing.

 

[Smithi]

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.

Nope. Been shown to you before, Michael. Including Scott's own words and diagrams. He has it in the chromosphere. So, where is the gamma from this? How is fusion happening in the sparse environment of the chromosphere?

Hint: Coronal loops and solar flares *are* dense enough.

Nope. Trivially false. You need p-p fusion. It is not going to happen in flares and loops! Lol. And, if it did, at the rate we detect neutrinos, the gamma would kill us. We are not dead, so that is trivially.....................false.

 

[Smithi]

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.

By 'mainstream' I assume you mean real scientists, with real qualificaions, in the relevant science? Who are they up against, here? A Velikovskian and a retired EE? I know where my money is!

Ya, I agree which is why the SAFIRE scientists are doing what they're doing.

Why? Their experiment is nothing to do with the real Sun!

 

[Smithi]

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?

Nope, Birkeland did not model the Sun. There is a hint in the name of the instrument! And MR has been observed on the Sun.

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?

No they have not, as they are not modelling anything that remotely resembles the Sun! And the hot corona is not far off being solved. It does not involve a metallic sphere and a squillion volts! Lol.

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.

Nope, there is no PC electric sun model. It is purely a fantasy of EU. And the only thing the models have in common is their lack of valid science, evidence and the fact that they all fail trivially.

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 know who came up with it. Juergens. And it was published in a joke Velikovskian rag. And Juergens was a Velikovskian......................person.

Ralph Juergens | The Velikovsky Encyclopedia

So, do not tell me that I am making things up when I obviously know more about it than you do. As usual.

 

[Smithi]

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.

That is not true, and you know it isn't. The models are trivially wrong. So why would anybody bother with them? And you don't think EU is inspired by the.........person Velikovsky? Really? Lol.

The ...........person, Wal Thornhill, from back in the day;

Electric Universe

Snigger.

I can think of several "legitimate scientists' that take it seriously, starting with everyone employed in the SAFIRE program.

Really? How many of them are astrophysicists? With a working knowledge of solar physics? Zero, would be my bet. They are on a good little earner, and probably have nothing else to do!

 

[Michael]

Nope. Sticking a squillion volts through a metal sphere is reproducing nothing of interest.

And yet they can and have easily produced a hot, consistent, full sphere corona in a lab, something you will *never* accomplish with "magnetic reconnection". You're apparently only interested in things that *do not work in the lab*, or can *never* work in the lab. Sorry, but I'm bored of that kind of useless nonsense from astronomers.

I'm not holding my breath full stop! The 'experiment' is a complete waste of time and money. I'll look out for the results in 'Dog Breeder's Weekly'.

More useless nonsense without a shred of a scientific argument. *BORING*!

Yawn. Change the record. You are making stuff up again.

Nope, just noting the electrophobic nature of astronomers in 2019. It's like watching Ptolemy advocates belittle and berate heliocentric ideas prior to Copernicus.

Lol. No, we have observed MR in action on the Sun! Not good enough for the unqualified, hmmm?

No you haven't. You've observed electrical discharges on the sun, and electrical processes on the sun, but you don't understand them properly, so you mislabel them to whatever you wish. Alas since you don't actually understand their real empirical cause correctly, you can't actually replicate any of the important solar features in a real lab on Earth, not even a sustained solar corona. EU/PC advocates have been doing such easy tasks for more than a *century* based on circuit theory. Laboratory demonstrations are your Achilles heal because you have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and your mathematical nonsense simply doesn't actually work in real life.

Even the lab experiments on MR theory that astronomers come up with are almost *always* powered by electricity and they *still* can't figure out that electricity is the real cause.

If MR advocates are so "qualified", where's their working corona model in a real lab experiment? It's already been done with two different EU/PC solar models, so what's the problem?

 

[Michael]

Birkeland didn't have a model.

Yes he did, and it works in the lab. That's what a working demonstration of concept looks like by the way.

You wouldn't know anything about his solar model since you've most likely never read his book or his papers and you probably never will. Ignorance isn't bliss in the realm of science.

Alfven died way back, so cannot comment on the current state of affairs.

I'm certain that he'd be using circuit theory to describe events in space, not "magnetic reconnection", which he *vehemently* rejected.

Falthammar is excited about MR in solar flares!

Oh well. Still waiting to see that working laboratory demonstration of a hot, sustained corona using "magnetic reconnection". We both know I"ll never live to see it.

Juergens was an EE.

So was Alfven. So what? It didn't prevent Alfven from writing MHD theory and winning the Nobel prize for it.

He had no idea about astrophysics.

Yet Alfven certainly knew about MHD theory and he *vehemently* rejected MR theory.

His model was a joke.

No, Juergen's anode solar model works in a lab too, which is more than can or ever will be said for almost all of your beliefs about astronomy, but I'd be inclined to agree that an anode model is probably not the correct one.

And not only would any alernative model have to predict the neutrino number, it would have to predict the energy spectrum. I'm seeing nothing.

You don't even "see" things that are staring you in the face, like those electrical discharges that we observe in the solar atmosphere, so that doesn't surprise me.

 

[Michael]

Nope. Been shown to you before, Michael. Including Scott's own words and diagrams. He has it in the chromosphere.

So why don't you write him and ask him if you're so sure that's still his opinion today. It's still a very easy problem to resolve.

So, where is the gamma from this?

Inside the photosphere would be the most likely scenario.

How is fusion happening in the sparse environment of the chromosphere?

It's happening inside coronal loops and solar flare discharges where plasma is "pinched" into "magnetic ropes". Alfven even describes magnetic ropes as "Bennett Pinches" in plasma and they are far more dense and far hotter than the average density and temperature of the chromosphere.

Nope. Trivially false. You need p-p fusion. It is not going to happen in flares and loops! Lol.

False
Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle

Some solar flares are more than hot enough and plenty dense enough to generate all kinds of fusion processes.

And, if it did, at the rate we detect neutrinos, the gamma would kill us. We are not dead, so that is trivially.....................false.

You're assuming that all the fusion has to take place above the surface of the photosphere in any and all anode models. That's simply not so. Your criticism is ultimately irrelevant.