EU/PC - Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology theory.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Let's get one thing straight. A numerical prediction is the logical consequence of a model. In science, a prediction made from a model is independently verifiable by anyone, (following the conception of the model). A prediction does not require having to go back to the model authors (akin to having to reference the Bible as some form of authority). Your above dilemma about your authors not being alive today, (so as to allow you to use them as some sort of reference source), is a consequence of your own misunderstanding of the concept of 'prediction' and how it works in science. (Sjastro demonstrated how a prediction is derived in post#86 here).

Ok. So what? Alfven used the *standard solar model* to start with so it necessarily *must* predict the same neutrino output that the standard model predicts. sjastro quantified Alfven's EU/PC solar model for you when he copied the information from WIKI. That's also true for Birkeland's model as well because it's internally powered according to Birkeland just like the standard solar model and it's based on the same basic principle of a "transmutation of elements" as it was referred to during his lifetime, AKA fusion today.

You might reasonably suggest that there is no quantified neutrino prediction which has specifically been published by an EU/PC proponent, but it's absolutely false to claim that *any* EU/PC solar model "predicts/produces no neutrinos!" Such rationalizations are just convoluted nonsense.

And that's not the point of asking for the demonstration how the numerical prediction would be derived.

No, the point of all of your questions seems to be intended to give you an excuse to launch yourself into a personal attack against me or someone else in the EU/PC community, or to post a link to another EU/PC hater engaging in that behavior. You personally accused Dr. Scott of plagiarism for crying out loud, and you don't even have the common decency to use your real name.

The point is that an accurate prediction would involve having to cite a physical mechanism.

Scott did that for you. I also handed you my own paper that is based on the plasma pinch process that occurs in magnetic ropes. The mechanism is identified.

How it is being used, thence becomes plainly visible during said demonstration. This is vital, because it may then be seen (by a reader) as being capable/not capable of functioning at the layer the star where it is being invoked. Saying that fusion can occur in sufficient amounts at/near the 'surface' does not make logical sense because we know from observations that the environmental conditions in the upper regions does not appear to be conducive to producing the net solar neutrino flux observed and does not explain the absence of gamma radiation.

That dead horse again? There won't be any visible gamma rays unless the fusion in the pinch process happens to occur *above* the surface of the photosphere as occurred in the instance that is described in my paper. The plasma pinch is the identified mechanism. [Staff edit]. Nobody claimed that all plasma pinches and all fusion occurs *above* the surface of the photosphere! That's another great example of a strawman argument.

On top of this, there appears to be no tangible support for the needed continuous magnitude(s) of the source(s) of the supposed fusion causing electrical activity, as hypothesised.

Says who? That's your unsubstanciated opinion, and it's right up there with all the rest of your ignorant claims. I can see for myself that there are magnetic ropes flowing all around the sun in solar satellite images. You're welcome to argue that the model won't work as described for some reason of your choosing but you can't claim that any EU/PC solar model predicts/produces no neutrinos! You're simply flat out misrepresenting the models (plural in your case).

[Staff edit].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
One specific difference in neutrinos predictions between the standard solar model and all EU/PC solar models is the *location* of fusion and the *location* of neutrino emissions and the variability of neutrino output. Whereas the standard model predicts fusion to be limited to the core, that's not the case with any EU/PC solar model. All three EU/PC solar models would tend to predict at least *some* amount of fusion to occur in the upper photosphere and the solar atmosphere during solar flare activity. Juergen's anode model predicts that the *majority* of sun's fusion occurs in the upper photosphere, whereas the other two EU/PC solar models would predict that the bulk of the fusion probably occurs in the core. That difference in the location of fusion and the variability of neutrino output allows one to make a valid neutrino comparison with the standard solar model, but no EU/PC solar model predicts "no neutrinos". That particular false claim is just another great example of a strawman argument.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
The Electric Sun

Fusion in the Double Layer
The z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments in an arc plasma is very strong. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place on the Sun is probably occurring here in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere (not deep within the core). The result of this fusion process are the 'metals' that give rise to absorption lines in the Sun's spectrum. Traces of sixty eight of the ninety two natural elements are found in the Sun's atmosphere. Most of the radio frequency noise emitted by the Sun emanates from this region. Radio noise is a well known property of DLs. The electrical power available to be delivered to the plasma at any point is the product of the E-field (V/m) times current density (A/m2). This multiplication operation yields Watts per cubic meter (power density). The current density is relatively constant over the height of the photospheric / chromospheric layers. However, the E-field is at its strongest at the center of the DL. Present thinking is that nuclear fusion takes a great deal of power - if that is so, then that power is available in the DL. It has reportedly been observed that the neutrino flux from the Sun varies inversely with sunspot number. This is expected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is probably z-pinch produced fusion which is occurring in the double layer - and sunspots are locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur. The greater the number of sunspots, the fewer the number of observed solar neutrinos.

Scott is specifically suggesting that fusion occurs in z-pinch processes in a double layer. The z-machine here on Earth produces plasma temperatures of billions of degrees in such plasma pinch processes:

Record Set for Hottest Temperature on Earth: 3.6 Billion Degrees in Lab

Where the heck did you get 5800K?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Maybe a visual aid might help [staff edit]:


Now mind you, the discharges we observe in this image are not necessarily anywhere near powerful enough to generate fusion, but hopefully it will convey the concept for you two. If you look really closely at the solar sphere in this image, you'll see very small electric discharges occurring randomly around the surface of sphere during the video. Those tiny discharges contain plasma that is momentarily at a higher temperature than the plasma around the rest of the sphere. That is because the discharge regions are carrying more current than the surrounding plasma, and the resistance to that extra current results in higher temperatures in those regions.

Likewise in Scott's model, the whole atmosphere is experiencing some amount of current flow, but the z-pinch filament channels are carrying *far more current* than the surrounding plasma, and the resistance to the flow of current in those areas results in both higher plasma temperatures, and a more dense, highly magnetically constricted plasma filament. The z-pinch describe by Scott are simply areas where the current is most concentrated, much like the current filament channels we observe in an ordinary plasma ball.

As with my previous example, the plasma temperatures inside the z-pinch region can be *much* hotter than the surrounding plasma, and the electron temperatures can exceed the ion temperatures by more than a whole order of magnitude.

You'd know all this if you'd actually read any of the three books or four books I suggested in the OP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
[Staff edit].

SDO | Solar Dynamics Observatory
Helioviewer.org

If you take a look at any iron ion wavelength in any SDO image (94A, 131A, 171A, 193A, 211A, 335A), you'll notice that the discharge loops/magnetic ropes come in all shapes and sizes, and they cover virtually the entire sphere.

Only the largest loops/ropes are large enough to rise up through the surface of the photosphere. When they do traverse the surface, they leave their magnetic field signatures on the surface of photosphere in magnetogram images. The N/S alignments are directly related to the direction of the flow of current in the loop as it traverses the surface.

They also leave their heat signatures on the surface of the photosphere which can be observed in 1600A and 1700A images. In fact you can overlay various SDO images using helioviewer and see those relationships play out in real time, or any time in the past from various satellites.

Most of the loops are far too small to become big enough to exit the double layer of the photosphere. Most of them never get big enough to rise up that high. The vast majority are smaller discharges that cover the whole electrode surface. Note that all EU/PC solar models would tend to predict some neutrino variation during intense active region activity due to the increase and intensity of the z-pinches occurring in those active regions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Ah yes .. double layer ... where does that come from?

The electric field. Both the anode and cathode solar models are based on the concept of a charge differentiation between the electrode surface and 'space'/the heliosphere. Alfven's model is based on the concept of a "homopolar generator". The rotation of the magnetic field of the sun induces current flow in the plasma around the sun. The current comes in at the poles and out along the Parker spiral region.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I haven't check out counterfactual quantum communication yet, but perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me as to why this mechanism couldn't be used to transfer information FTL?

Scientists Achieve Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication For The First Time

Quantum communication is a strange beast, but one of the weirdest proposed forms of it is called counterfactual communication - a type of quantum communication where no particles travel between two recipients.

If no particles have to travel, then why is this mechanism limited to the speed of light?
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
So, a summary of the glaring problems with Michael's 'EU/PC theory', ('story' is more appropriate) is:

i) An absence of the levels gamma radiation, which would result from the inferred 'en-masse' fusion in supposed z-pinched arcs in coronal loops. The Corona is too thin to absorb the levels of gamma radiation which would be commensurate with neutrino production quantitities. So where is it?

ii) The temperature of the photosphere would be way higher than it is (~5800K) if the supposed loop z-pinched arc fusion is occuring with the frequency Michael infers, in order to support the measured neutrino flux quantities.

iii) The hotter photosphere from (ii) would not produce its observed absorption spectrum.

iv) Convection would be inhibited because the photospheric surface in (ii) would be way hotter than the interior.

v) Fusion at an average photospheric temperature of 5800K is not supportable even with the supposed arc fusion Z-pinch.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
So, a summary of the glaring problems with Michael's 'EU/PC theory', ('story' is more appropriate) is:

It's not 'Michael's theory'. Its not even my solar model in fact, and it's one I don't even personally prefer in the first place.

[Staff edit]

i) An absence of the levels gamma radiation, which would result from the inferred 'en-masse' fusion in supposed z-pinched arcs in coronal loops.

That's simply false because your argument assumes that most z-pinches are above the surface of the photosphere whereas Scott is discussing fusion *in* the photosphere. There are some gamma rays observed at times, like the instance described in my paper, but nobody claimed that all z-pinches occur in the corona in Scott's model other than you two. That's a total strawman and I've corrected your error *several* times now, so it's not even an honest argument.

The Corona is too thin to absorb the levels of gamma radiation which would be commensurate with neutrino production quantitities. So where is it?

It's inside the photosphere as I've been pointing out to you since you first made this same error.

[Staff edit].

ii) The temperature of the photosphere would be way higher than it is (~5800K) if the supposed loop z-pinched arc fusion is occuring with the frequency Michael infers, in order to support the measured neutrino flux quantities.

Why? Where's your math to support that claim? Your own standard solar model requires that *all fusion is occurring under the photosphere* so any temperature argument that you come up with would necessarily apply to your own model as well.

iii) The hotter photosphere from (ii) would not produce its observed absorption spectrum.

This is another bogus (gish gallop) argument because Scott is not claiming that *more* fusion occurs below the photosphere than in your model. Whatever argument you're going to make about the temperature at the surface of the photosphere would apply equally to the standard model. It's a completely bogus argument.

iv) Convection would be inhibited because the photospheric surface in (ii) would be way hotter than the interior.

No, it would be the very same temperature as the standard solar model because they both predict exactly the same amount of fusion to occur under the surface of the photosphere. There's no *more* fusion in Scott's model than in any other fusion model, so the temperature argument is pure nonsense.

v) Fusion at an average photospheric temperature of 5800K is not supportable even with the supposed arc fusion Z-pinch.

This whole argument is just childish because all fusion models predict a 5800K surface and all the fusion occurs under that same surface in every model. The only way your claim would be true is *if* Scott predicted *more* fusion than the standard model, and he's not making that prediction. It's only getting up to 5800K *because* of the amount of fusion inside the sun, just like the standard model.

What a ridiculous argument. No model is proposing *more* fusion than any other model and all of them predict exactly the same surface temperature. Scott's model is no different in that way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
I haven't check out counterfactual quantum communication yet, but perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me as to why this mechanism couldn't be used to transfer information FTL?
I already told you that.

If no particles have to travel, then why is this mechanism limited to the speed of light?
Because it is light, and its wave propagates at c :doh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I already told you that.

I'll have to go back and look because I must have missed it. It's been a busy week, so that's certainly possible.

Because it is light, and its wave propagates at c :doh:

Really? Hmmm. The article specifically stated:

Quantum communication is a strange beast, but one of the weirdest proposed forms of it is called counterfactual communication - a type of quantum communication where no particles travel between two recipients.

I guess I assumed when they used the term "no particles", that also meant no photons. As I mentioned earlier, I hadn't had time to check it out yet. :sorry:
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
It's not 'Michael's theory'. Its not even my solar model in fact, and it's one I don't even personally prefer in the first place.
You are presenting it and not linking to papers from which we might then read about it.

And what you present, keeps changing.

Michael said:
That's simply false because your argument assumes that most z-pinches are above the surface of the photosphere whereas Scott is discussing fusion *in* the photosphere. There are some gamma rays observed at times, like the instance described in my paper, but nobody claimed that all z-pinches occur in the corona in Scott's model other than you two.
Show us the calculations (the numbers) for the split of what's '*in* the photosphere' and what's not then.

Michael said:
It's inside the photosphere as I've been pointing out to you since you first made this same error.

[Staff edit].

Show us the numbers!

Michael said:
Why? Where's your math to support that claim? Your own standard solar model requires that *all fusion is occurring under the photosphere* so any temperature argument that you come up with would necessarily apply to your own model as well.
No .. fusion occurs deep in the core in the standard model.
Your fusion only occurs > (R(solar) - 400kms)!
Yet you apparently don't seem to understand the difference(s) that makes.

Michael said:
This is another bogus (gish gallop) argument because Scott is not claiming that *more* fusion occurs below the photosphere than in your model. Whatever argument you're going to make about the temperature at the surface of the photosphere would apply equally to the standard model. It's a completely bogus argument.
You said your Scott model mechanism also operates in coronal loops and above the photosphere, no?
So, show us the frequency of discharges and energy produced, derived from the incoming current which sustains the DL (for example).

Michael said:
No, it would be the very same temperature as the standard solar model because they both predict exactly the same amount of fusion to occur under the surface of the photosphere. There's no *more* fusion in Scott's model than in any other fusion model, so the temperature argument is pure nonsense.
There's significant radiation and convection regions separating the photosphere and the core fusion regions in the standard model. No mention of that in your Scott model.

Michael said:
This whole argument is just childish because all fusion models predict a 5800K surface and all the fusion occurs under that same surface in every model. The only way your claim would be true is *if* Scott predicted *more* fusion than the standard model, and he's not making that prediction. It's only getting up to 5800K *because* of the amount of fusion inside the sun, just like the standard model.
Your Scott model has to maintain a DL whose existence is dependent on temperature (amongst a myriad of other parameters).

Michael said:
What a ridiculous argument. No model is proposing *more* fusion than any other model and all of them predict exactly the same surface temperature. Scott's model is no different in that way.
The show us your Scott model predictions then .. including the math.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Agree
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,130
19,010
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,719.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
red-strawberry-hat-wool-beret-girls-winter-wear20667.jpg

MOD HAT ON
This thread has had a substantial clean.
Please either debate the science or cease posting;
further flaming or goading will not be tolerated.​
MOD HAT OFF
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
You are presenting it and not linking to papers from which we might then read about it.

I'm not aware of a specific "paper" that deals with his electric sun model, but he's produced a youtube video on this topic, and put up an 'overview' presentation on his website, and he's published a book on the topic of the electric universe.

The Electric Sun
https://www.amazon.com/Electric-Sky-Donald-Scott-ebook/dp/B002NGO5MI

And what you present, keeps changing.

I don't think so. What do you mean?

Show us the calculations (the numbers) for the split of what's '*in* the photosphere' and what's not then.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread (I'm not sure if it survived the staff edits), I don't believe that any EU/PC proponent has tried to reinvent the wheel with respect to providing neutrino calculations nor tried to separate them into different parts of the solar atmosphere in a published paper.

On his website link however, you'll find this comment:

A cross-section taken through a photospheric granule is shown in the three plots shown together below in figure 1. The horizontal axis of each of the three plots is distance, measured radially outward (upward), starting at a point near the bottom of the photosphere (the true surface of the Sun - which we can only observe in the umbra of sunspots).

Scott states that the 'true surface' of the sun is located at the "bottom' of the photosphere. Note that this explanation is entirely consistent with the layered solar model which is described on my website, although his surface is an "anode" surface whereas my website describes a Birkeland model cathode surface.

A Blog About Solar Theory-The Solar Corona, The Chromosphere And The Photosphere.

FYI, based on heliosiesmology studies by Kosovichev, I estimate that 'true surface' to be about 4800K below the surface of the photosphere. (Search for 4800) At that location we see a 'flattening out' of the vertical mass flow movements underneath sunspots.

Show us the numbers!

As I said, AFAIK, no EU/PC proponent has tried to reinvent the wheel, we've simply used *observed* numbers.

No .. fusion occurs deep in the core in the standard model.
Your fusion only occurs > (R(solar) - 400kms)!
Yet you apparently don't seem to understand the difference(s) that makes.

Actually I do understand the difference that makes, particularly as it relates to predictions related to the speed of convection at depth. Not coincidentally IMO, the standard solar model predictions about the speed of convection at depth are off by *two whole orders of magnitude*.

Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected

In short, the mainstream predictions about the speed of convection have been falsified, the model is now broken and it's been broken since 2012.

You said your Scott model mechanism also operates in coronal loops and above the photosphere, no?

z-pinches would be occurring both above and below the solar surface inside coronal loops/discharges loops, both large and small. Only the largest loops however would ever become large enough to rise up and through the surface of the photosphere. Most of them would occur along the 'true surface' as Scott describes it, and never rise above the surface of the photosphere. When the large loops do traverse that surface they leave heat signatures in 1600A and 1700A images and N/S magnetic field alignments that show up in magnetogram images. If you use helioviewer images to overlay magnetogram and 1600A images, you'll see a correlation between the "hot spots" in the 1600A images and the N/S field alignments in magnetogram images. If you also overlay say a 131A image, you'll see that those locations on the surface also relate to the location of the largest coronal loops.

The *vast* majority of discharge loops however *never* get above the surface of the photosphere, which is why the magnetogram images are mostly grey with only intermittent N/S features on the surface.

So, show us the frequency of discharges and energy produced, derived from the incoming current which sustains the DL (for example).

I don't believe that Scott has ever made such a calculation for his model.

There's significant radiation and convection regions separating the photosphere and the core fusion regions in the standard model. No mention of that in your Scott model.

That opens up that whole can of worms related to the mainstream convection predictions. Your model has actually been *falsified* by SDO data.

Your Scott model has to maintain a DL whose existence is dependent on temperature (amongst a myriad of other parameters).

It's not "my Scott model", it's "Scott's model".

The show us your Scott model predictions then .. including the math.

As I pointed out, to my knowledge no EU/PC proponent has attempted to reinvent the wheel with respect to calculating neutrino output with any model. We've all simply accepted the *observed* number. Scott however does not believe that neutrinos oscillate, rather he believes they are related to the production of heavy elements.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
FYI, here's a current magnetogram image of the sun. The colored areas are areas where the coronal loops/discharge loops are large enough to rise up and through the surface of the photosphere, and come back through the surface of the photosphere leaving their magnetic field signatures on that surface.

http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/movies/latest/M_color_2d.mpg

If you notice, most of the surface is grey, meaning indicating area that are not experiencing any loops traversing the surface of the photosphere in those areas.

In comparison, the link below shows a 171A iron ion image of the sun. It shows that hot plasma loops cover virtually the entire sun. Most of those loops however are quite small. They begin and end at the "true surface' which Scott describes, but they aren't large enough to rise above the surface of the photosphere so they don't all leave magnetic field signatures on that surface.

https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_0171.mp4

The vast majority of discharge loops begin and end at the "true surface' (the electrode) and due to their small size, they never rise out of the photopshere. They exist entirely within the photosphere. The bulk of the z-pinch processes occur *under* the surface of the photosphere.

I should point out (admit) that your argument about the amount of fusion and heat production that is required in Scott's model inside that double layer region at the top of the photosphere seems excessive even to me. That is one of the reasons (though not the primary reason) why I prefer Birkeland's cathode model over Juergen's/Scott's anode model. In short, your "heat" argument against his model may indeed have some merit, but I would certainly expect the bulk of the fusion to occur *under* the surface of the photopshere in his model according to Scott, and based on the SDO images, so I don't believe that your gamma ray argument has merit. The heat concentration aspect/argument however warrants some concern IMO as well.

Having said that, there's nothing about an anode model (in general) that would prevent at least some of the fusion to be occurring *underneath* of Scott's "true surface", so I cannot rule out all anode models that way, even if Scott's model could be eliminated based on a heat concentration type argument.

The primary reason that I personally prefer Birkeland's *cathode* solar model is because it allows for fusion to occur both in the core and *occasionally* in the upper atmosphere. More importantly however, it also does a better job IMO of predicting the observed features of the solar wind. Specifically it correctly predicts "cathode rays"/electron beams coming from the sun, as well as *both types* of charged particles coming from the sun.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
SelfSim

Michael said:
In short, your "heat" argument against his model may indeed have some merit, but I would certainly expect the bulk of the fusion to occur *under* the surface of the photopshere in his model according to Scott, and based on the SDO images, so I don't believe that your gamma ray argument has merit. The heat concentration aspect/argument however warrants some concern IMO as well.


Note the misrepresentation of Scott’s model given he explicitly states fusion probably occurs at the top of the photosphere.

Scott said:
Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place on the Sun is probably occurring here in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere (not deep within the core).

So on the contrary the lack of gamma ray photons is a very strong argument against Scott’s model.

Now we have these quotes.
Michael said:
In short, your "heat" argument against his model may indeed have some merit…..

I should point out (admit) that your argument about the amount of fusion and heat production that is required in Scott's model inside that double layer region at the top of the photosphere seems excessive even to me.

The heat concentration aspect/argument however warrants some concern IMO as well.

Michael must have had some revelation since the staff edits or the more likely explanation he has plain forgotten what he wrote previously.
He needs to be reminded he assumed the mechanism of high temperature plasma fusion in the lab is replicated in Scott’s model.

Since he couldn’t find even a hint of a suggestion of this in Scott’s link he went through the convoluted exercise of rewriting Scott’s model in a desperate attempt to show high temperatures were possible because he couldn’t admit how wrong he was.

Irrespective of what he thinks now as opposed to then it is clearly evident Michael doesn’t understand the role of the Double Layer in Scott’s model.
In lab plasma Z-fusion the kinetic energy is supplied by heating the plasma to ultra high temperatures; in Scott’s model the kinetic energy for fusion is provided by accelerating the positive ions over the potential drop of the Double Layer.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
... Note the misrepresentation of Scott’s model given he explicitly states fusion probably occurs at the top of the photosphere.
...
So on the contrary the lack of gamma ray photons is a very strong argument against Scott’s model.
Yep .. agreed .. sure is!
I also recall from Scott's commentary that he also believes the deeper layers (visible through sunspots) are evidence that the deeper layers (even to the core?) are cool! How such beliefs can be said as being similar to the standard solar model, (as Michael claimed), completely escape me .. especially when there are such glaring fundamental difference as this(?)

sjastro said:
Now we have these quotes.
...
Michael must have had some revelation since the staff edits or the more likely explanation he has plain forgotten what he wrote previously.
He needs to be reminded he assumed the mechanism of high temperature plasma fusion in the lab is replicated in Scott’s model.
Yes ... 'arc discharge fusion', if I recall correctly ..

sjastro said:
Since he couldn’t find even a hint of a suggestion of this in Scott’s link he went through the convoluted exercise of rewriting Scott’s model in a desperate attempt to show high temperatures were possible because he couldn’t admit how wrong he was.
IIRC, he said words to the effect of: that no EU/PC theorist said fusion occurs at 5800K(?) and then pointed to Scott's invoked double layer arc fusion mechanism, (mentioned as also occuring in coronal loops - by Michael), and then this somehow worked its way sub-photosphere surface ...

sjastro said:
Irrespective of what he thinks now as opposed to then it is clearly evident Michael doesn’t understand the role of the Double Layer in Scott’s model.
In lab plasma Z-fusion the kinetic energy is supplied by heating the plasma to ultra high temperatures; in Scott’s model the kinetic energy for fusion is provided by accelerating the positive ions over the potential drop of the Double Layer.
Yes .. I think I tried to point out, (way back in the original thread), that what happens on the solar surface environment, and what happens in the lab, are vastly fundamentally different. This why I also ignore any supposed relevancies he infers in that video he always posts of the two 'planeterrella' globe simulation.

Either way, the more one drills into Scott's model, the more conflicted it becomes. Maintaining that supposed double layer, is by no means a straight forward: 'roll-over and accept what I'm saying is true' exercise, and there are lots of reasons for rejecting this notion.

Once we've laid Scott's model to rest in peace, we also need to address Michael's Birkeland current solar model ... This one is even more difficult to swallow than Scott's, IMO.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.