EU/PC - Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology theory.

Status
Not open for further replies.

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
... I don't think so. What do you mean?
Its been extraordinarily difficult to try and figure out from your commentary on Scott's model, just where fusion is supposedly occurring .. ie: is it sub-photosphere or in the upper photosphere (as Scott's website says)? It matters .. A LOT!

Michael said:
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.
Isn't it fairly clear that neutrino flux measurements need to be closely tied (numerically) with the frequency (and intensities) of fusion occurrence in Scott's model and justified against the evidently absent, but expected, high levels of gamma radiation?
Sweeping the major issues about missing evidence for z-pinch arc fusion under the rug and hiding behind the standard model's justification for neutrino generation, (along with its numerical predictions of such), is not going to convince any solar scientist to buy into the EU/PC story.

Michael said:
On his website link however, you'll find this comment:
...
I read those comments of his as being descriptions of what he'd expect to find theoretically, IF his 'anode' surface was actually there. In other words, its a thought experiment, (or some kind of musing he has going on in his mind) .. its a form of logical syllogism at best. This statement means nothing where there is no evidence for the existence of an anode surface in the first place.

Michael said:
Scott states that the 'true surface' of the sun is located at the "bottom' of the photosphere.
Once again .. 'true surface' is indicative of a test of logic and not 'empirically evidenced' (or scientifically justified for being included in his model).

Michael said:
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.
Yes and he needs his model to be consistent with the standard solar model for his 'thought experiment' to seem 'reasonable', but it still lacks in own empirical justification. The parts he's adding however (eg: the 'anode', the DL, arc-fusion sufficient to generate the standard model predicted neutrino flux, etc), have no presented justifications in his descriptions.
They might come from elsewhere, but he doesn't explicitly state where in his commentary.

Michael said:
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.
4800kms below the photospheric surface would place this at the very bottom of the standard model photosphere. Also please define what you/he means by 'true surface'.

Michael said:
As I said, AFAIK, no EU/PC proponent has tried to reinvent the wheel, we've simply used *observed* numbers.
And this adds no 'weight' whatsoever to any EU/PC components of the model.

Michael said:
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.
Would they? Why? Are you just saying this to fit observations/data?
If so, this is not the scientific method.

Michael said:
I don't believe that Scott has ever made such a calculation for his model.
He needs to.

Michael said:
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.
So he accepts the '*observed* number' but rejects flavour oscillation. Why? What are his reasons for rejection?
How does such a rejection improve his model's predictions?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Its been extraordinarily difficult to try and figure out from your commentary on Scott's model,

Why? Because you won't bother to read his book for yourself or even listen to his direct statements on his website? Why be at my mercy in the first place, and why not read them for yourself?

just where fusion is supposedly occurring .. ie: is it sub-photosphere or in the upper photosphere (as Scott's website says)? It matters .. A LOT!

Dr. Scott said:
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). Almost every observed property of the Sun can be explained through reference to these three plots; for this reason, much of the discussion that follows makes reference to them.

Emphasis mine. What do these statements mean to you? What do the phrases "the bottom of photosophere" and "the true surface of the Sun" suggest to you? To me they suggest he's talking about a "true surface" that sits below the surface of the photosphere. FYI Sir William Herschel described the sun in nearly the same manner. :) He described the sun as having as surface like any planet, with a luminous layer covering that surface (the photosphere) which was almost identical to the way that Scott describes it.

speculation about life on the Sun

More remarkably, as late as 1795, the distinguished astronomer William Herschel maintained that the Sun was essentially a large planet with a solid surface, surrounded by two layers of clouds.

Contrary to Herschel however, Scott doesn't propose that people inhabit the sun. :) Still, it's interesting that they both believed that there was a "true surface" sitting under the surface of the photosphere, which is also exactly the same conclusion I came to via the study of satellite imagery.

Scott also states rather bluntly:

The essence of the Electric Sun hypothesis is a description of the electrical properties of its photosphere, chromosphere, and the resulting effects on the charged particles that move through those layers. The surface of the Sun that we typically see from Earth is the photosphere which is a brightly radiating layer of plasma only about 500 km thick. It is analogous to the 'anode glow' region of a laboratory gas discharge experiment except that it is in arc mode.

Scott makes no mention of a second atmospheric layer that Herschel eludes to (and my website describes), but he certainly makes it clear that the photosphere is undergoing an arc discharge, and fusion occurs in z-pinches in that double layer.

I don't see any figure that states *exactly* where Scott thinks the sun's "true surface" is located, but it's at least 500 KM under the surface of the photosphere. If Herschel (and I) am correct, there's also a second plasma layer between the surface of the photosphere and the 'true surface'.

My personal best guess (based on heliosiesmology data) is that the true surface is about 4800Km under the surface of the photosphere and the sun's double layers are arranged by atomic weight. The second layer in Herschel's model would be analogous to the silicon plasma layer in my model.

Wherever you decide to put the "true surface" however, it's necessarily located at the "bottom" of the photosphere *at least* 500 KM below the surface of the photosphere according to Scott. It would necessarily be much further than 500 KM in Herschel's model and my model. I don't recall Herschel providing any figures however, but I have done so for more than a decade.

Isn't it fairly clear that neutrino flux measurements need to be closely tied (numerically) with the frequency (and intensities) of fusion occurrence in Scott's model and justified against the evidently absent, but expected, high levels of gamma radiation?

You keep falsely asserting that his model should expect 'high levels of gamma radiation" when in fact the gamma radiation would be absorbed by the photoshere in Scott's model. Why do you keep making that same false statement over and over again when there is *at least* 500Km of photosphere material between his "true surface" and the surface of the photosphere?

Sweeping the major issues about missing evidence for z-pinch arc fusion under the rug

Huh? What "missing evidence"? There is no 'missing evidence", there's plenty of satellite image evidence to confirm his model. Scott's "true surface" electrode has a positive charge with respect to space, vs. Birkeland's predicted negative charge, but the rest of Scott's model is otherwise perfectly consistent with the Birkeland cathode model described on my website, including the prediction that the electrode 'true surface" is located underneath of the surface of the photosphere. Scott's model is also congruent with Herschel's model in that sense.

and hiding behind the standard model's justification for neutrino generation, (along with its numerical predictions of such),

Scott is doing no such thing actually. His model predicts the same number of observed neutrinos, but it doesn't predict that they all originate as electron neutrinos. It's using a different set of assumptions about the location and method of generation. You could rightly claim his model should therefore include some neutrino calculations, but you can't really suggest he's hiding behind anything or anyone. He's making unique predictions in fact in terms of their production *location*, and in terms of neutrino oscillation.

...is not going to convince any solar scientist to buy into the EU/PC story.

Yet you when your own model *failed* those convection predictions by two entire orders of magnitude, you simply swept that problem right under the rug. Why should anyone buy your model when it's in direct conflict with SDO observations?

I read those comments of his as being descriptions of what he'd expect to find theoretically, IF his 'anode' surface was actually there. In other words, its a thought experiment, (or some kind of musing he has going on in his mind) .. its a form of logical syllogism at best.

SAFIRE Project | The International Science Foundation

Not really. The Safire experiments are also based on that very same model. It's perhaps not as well 'tested' in the lab as Birkeland's cathode model, but Scott's model can be tested and is being tested in the lab.

This statement means nothing where there is no evidence for the existence of an anode surface in the first place.

There's *plenty* of satellite evidence to support the existence of an electrode surface that sits under the surface of the photosphere. In fact, every single SDO and other satellite image is consistent with that model and entirely inconsistent with the standard model by the way.

Once again .. 'true surface' is indicative of a test of logic and not 'empirically evidenced' (or scientifically justified for being included in his model).

That's just false. Not only is his "true surface" model supported by satellite imagery, it's supported by some elements of Safire experiments. Much as you might hate to admit it, your model doesn't even explain something as simple as a hot corona, and it's convection predictions have already been falsified by SDO. If anyone's solar model is "not empirically evidenced" it's the standard solar model. Let's see your lab production of a corona using that model? The standard solar model is more akin to "thought experiment" which has already been falsified.

Yes and he needs his model to be consistent with the standard solar model for his 'thought experiment' to seem 'reasonable',

Not really, just the total neutrino observations have to be consistent with the standard model, but not the convection prediction, neutrino oscillation predictions, or his variability of neutrino predictions. None of them have to be the same as the standard model, it simply has to match the *observed* neutrino production of the sun and it does, just not in a quantified published paper.

but it still lacks in own empirical justification.

No more than the standard model lacks justification due to those failed convection predictions. Scott's model can and has been tested in the lab in terms of various elements of his model.

The parts he's adding however (eg: the 'anode', the DL, arc-fusion sufficient to generate the standard model predicted neutrino flux, etc), have no presented justifications in his descriptions.

True, but then standard model convection predictions not only have no present justification either. So what? That's not a reason to reject a model. There was a time when the standard model could not explain neutrino observations either, but nobody abandoned the model during that timeline.

They might come from elsewhere, but he doesn't explicitly state where in his commentary.

Ok, but then so what? Where are your new convection *postdictions* which actually match observation? Has anyone done that yet?

4800kms below the photospheric surface would place this at the very bottom of the standard model photosphere. Also please define what you/he means by 'true surface'.

Personally I believe that it's a typical "solid" crust, just like Herschel suggested. Dr. Manual and I hedged a bit in our published papers however and called it a 'rigid' surface because it could simply be a more rigid layer of plasma. I'm not sure what Scott thinks it's made of (solid or plasma).

And this adds no 'weight' whatsoever to any EU/PC components of the model.

Ya, and those falsified convection predictions not only didn't add weight to the standard solar model, they blew it out of the water. :) I've still yet to see them updated even five years later. What's up with that?

Would they? Why? Are you just saying this to fit observations/data?
If so, this is not the scientific method.

So what are you going to do with your convection fiasco? Are you going to allow your model to just die or will those numbers be updated based on observation? I actually personally came to the same conclusion that Scott did based on what I observed in satellite imagery, so I know for a fact that his model is consistent will all the SDO satellite data. I have "concerns" about his model as it relates to solar wind and it's direction of flow, but otherwise it's 'more correct' than the standard model in that respect. There is no "transition" layer for instance. That's merely an 'optical illusion' caused by absorption in the solar atmosphere along the rim. There's not even a valid explanation as to why a "transition" region would form, or what it's heat source would be.

He needs to.

Sure, and you need to update your convection predictions, explain the solar corona, and duplicate as much as Birkeland did a century ago too, but I'm not holding my breath in terms of when that might (if ever) happen.

So he accepts the '*observed* number' but rejects flavour oscillation. Why? What are his reasons for rejection?

I think he just believe that oscillation isn't necessary in his model and that's its related to heavy element fusion rather than oscillation. Most oscillation experiments are based on *missing* neutrinos, not direct irrefutable laboratory evidence of electron neutrinos changing into muon or tau neutrinos in controlled experiments.

I'm personally ambivalent on that issue. Maybe they oscillate, maybe not. If it turns out that they don't oscillate, that would destroy the mainstream model, but it would be quite a feather in his cap. Likewise when we have enough resolution to determine *where* the neutrinos come from his model may predict the correct location. Ditto for the variability aspect of his predictions. His model makes very different qualitative predictions which are actually more important than the quantitative aspects.

How does such a rejection improve his model's predictions?

It gives us a method to differentiate between your model and his. Right now all the neutrino experiments show a *loss* of neutrinos in transit, which could be do to scattering or absorption rather than oscillation. What hasn't been done is show that say 100 electron neutrinos at point A) turn into 33 muon and 33 tau neutrinos at point B). It if it turns out that scattering is the actual cause of neutrino loss, then Scott's prediction will win him some points. It's good that his model offers some "unique" predictions related to neutrinos, and in fact those qualitative differences are more important IMO than quantitative predictions. Why? You're not willing to falsify your own model based on those failed convection predictions are you? Quantification is typically not a useful way to falsify a scientific model. DM "quantification" models were falsified by the handful at LHC, but the concept lives on.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

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

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

FYI, since all your posts were apparently "junk" as far as the moderators were concerned, I can't quote you anymore, but only you have consistently misrepresented Scott's model.

I also wouldn't get too overjoyed about me second guessing his heat aspects, because frankly I'm still second and third guessing my concerns on that issue. I'm not convinced either argument is valid at this point. I'm still thinking about it.

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

No, it's not because gamma ray production in the photosphere is going to be absorbed by the photosphere. *If* (and only if) Scott weren't describing a 'true surface' your argument might have merit. Since he puts that "true surface' *at least* 500KM under the surface of the photosphere, your gamma ray argument is irrelevant.

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.

I haven't forgotten what I wrote and I'm *still* pondering the legitimacy of that argument. I'd explain my concerns more fully to you before I make up my mind, but I know from experience that you would simply twist my statements like a pretzel and continue to fixate on the *individual* rather than the argument itself.

[quote[He needs to be reminded he assumed the mechanism of high temperature plasma fusion in the lab is replicated in Scott’s model.[/quote]

So what? Heat from the z-pinch process will be dissipated into the photosphere.

Since he couldn’t find even a hint of a suggestion of this in Scott’s link

That's another false statement on your part since Scott intentionally and explicitly talks about z-pinches in a "arc discharge' environment. I see now why the mods simply removed all your posts in this thread. It was all misinformation to start with.

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.

All of that is false. You simply won't admit that your consistently ignored his statements about a "true surface" at the "bottom" of the photosphere and you consistently ignored his use of the term z-pinch. You've apparently never read his book either, so evidently your irrelevant opinions are based on a misread of a single website page. It's not my fault that you're in complete denial of his use of the term z-pinch, and 'true surface'.

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.

You're a really terrible mind reader and you have a really bad habit of engaging in pure projection. The whole 'photosophere' in his model is a double layer that sits *above* the "true surface' of his model. You're in denial of his own statements related to z-pinches, arc discharges and a "true surface".

In lab plasma Z-fusion the kinetic energy is supplied by heating the plasma to ultra high temperatures;

Ya, with *electric current* just as his model works. Those z-pinch filaments are also embedded inside of a cooler double layer "photosphere" in his model which absorbs that heat and the heat is carried away at the surface of the photosphere.

in Scott’s model the kinetic energy for fusion is provided by accelerating the positive ions over the potential drop of the Double Layer.

In other words there's an arc discharge and a voltage difference at both sides of the double layer. You're oversimplifying his model and twisting his statements like a pretzel because he specifically talks about z-pinches which also involve the flow of electrons. In a z-pinch the electron temperatures can be orders of magnitude greater than ion temperatures.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
FYI, since all your posts were apparently "junk" as far as the moderators were concerned, I can't quote you anymore, but only you have consistently misrepresented Scott's model.
Personal attack.

I'd explain my concerns more fully to you before I make up my mind, but I know from experience that you would simply twist my statements like a pretzel and continue to fixate on the *individual* rather than the argument itself.

Personal attack.

I see now why the mods simply removed all your posts in this thread. It was all misinformation to start with.

Personal attack.


You're a really terrible mind reader and you have a really bad habit of engaging in pure projection.

Personal attack.

Michael obviously refuses to comply with moderator requests
Post has been reported.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Yep .. agreed .. sure is!

Nope, it's based on a strawman argument, *as usual*. The photosphere would simply absorb those gamma rays.

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!

Which would be consistent with the fact that the layers get progressively cooler from the corona, to the chromosphere, to the photosphere and below the photosphere as well.

How such beliefs can be said as being similar to the standard solar model, (as Michael claimed),

Strawman! I never claimed that layering concept was consistent with the standard model, but it is consistent with *observation* in sunspots where temperatures can be over a thousand degrees *cooler* than the photosphere.

completely escape me .. especially when there are such glaring fundamental difference as this(?)

You mean you confused *yourself* with your own strawman? Maybe you should stop resorting to the use of strawmen then.

Yes ... 'arc discharge fusion', if I recall correctly ..

Well, at least you got one thing right, but it's more like "z-pinch fusion" in an arc discharge environment.

IIRC, he said words to the effect of: that no EU/PC theorist said fusion occurs at 5800K(?)...

Because nobody in the EU/PC community has made such a claim.

and then pointed to Scott's invoked double layer arc fusion mechanism, ....

Ya, specifically the 'z-pinch" term Scott referred to.

(mentioned as also occuring in coronal loops - by Michael),

That's because a "z-pinch" creates filaments that are caused by the flow of current and the magnetic "pinch" effect that creates dense filaments in current carrying environments. That same filamentary process occurs inside of an ordinary plasma ball albeit without enough current to create a full z-pinch.

and then this somehow worked its way sub-photosphere surface ...

No, it starts at Scott's "true surface" because that "true surface" is the electrode.

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.

Not in Scott's model. They are exactly the same in fact.

This why I also ignore any supposed relevancies he infers in that video he always posts of the two 'planeterrella' globe simulation.


In other words, you can't handle the facts. That video shows that the heat source of the corona is electrical current and it demonstrates that the atmosphere above the electrode can be, and is often "hotter than" the electrode. It also shows that high intensity discharges occur at the *surface of the electrode*. EU/PC models work in the lab as described.

Either way, the more one drills into Scott's model, the more conflicted it becomes.

Only because you two seem intent on *not* understanding his statements, otherwise it makes perfect sense.

Maintaining that supposed double layer, is by no means a straight forward:

It's perfectly straight forward as long as one embraces persistent electric fields.

'roll-over and accept what I'm saying is true' exercise, and there are lots of reasons for rejecting this notion.

Yet somehow you expect me to believe your solar model is true, in spite of the fact that it's convection predictions were shown to be off by two whole orders of magnitude and you've still never fixed them. Give me a break. That like the height of hypocrisy all things considered. I don't have to have faith in Birkeland's solar model or Scott's solar model, I can test them in the lab if I so choose. Birkeland tested both a cathode and an anode model, whereas Safire has only tested an anode model AFAIK.

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.

I'd actually *love* to hear you even try to do that. I'll be happy to defend Birkeland's model. It's actually incredibly easy to defend because it actually works in the lab and has worked in the lab for more than a century, and the predictions he made were all shown to be true, including his solar wind predictions.

FYI, there actually is at least one valid argument against an anode solar model, but neither of you have mentioned it yet.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Michael obviously refuses to comply with moderator requests
Post has been reported.

Right. You talk about "Michael, Michael, Michael" in every single one of you posts and you consistently and intentionally misrepresent my statements in every post, and when I point out that absurd behavior, it's somehow a "personal attack" against you? Wow You accused me of misrepresenting Scott's model when it fact it is you who have been consistently doing so since day one.

Stop talking about me, stick to the topic, and stop misrepresenting my statements and stop misrepresenting Scott's model!
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
How come LCDM proponents spent all that money on dark matter "tests' and found nothing? What "testable" evidence is there for "dark matter"?



Even I'm not much of a fan of "supernatural" definitions of God. LCDM is worse than any monotheistic religion however because monotheists only propose a *single* supernatural construct at worse case, whereas LCDM proponents need four of them. It's an insulting comparison alright, but religion is being insulted, not LCDM proponents.



My alternatives work in the lab however. Your dark antivaxers and dark moon hoaxers don't work in the lab in the first place. Your comparison is absurd by the way since I'm promoting *pure empirical physics* whereas you're promoting supernatural metaphysics on a stick. You might as well be suggesting that dark voodoo is a valid alternative to empirical vaccination.



No, your statement is still false. They don't accept it because they don't understand it to start with, and they simply believe what they're told, just like you. They don't have EU/PC "discrediting" superpowers anymore than you do. I'd bet big bucks that the *vast* majority of mainstreams have never read *any* of those three books from my OP and none of them have read all three. That's why you can't produce a single argument that cites any of their work, or does so *accurately* at least.



Horse pucky. Name them. AFAIK, the EU/PC "hater posse" totals about 12 very vocal guys and gals at best case. None of them have *ever* cited an actual error in any of Alfven's work. Never. I doubt that "hundreds" of them have ever read Alfven's book "Cosmic Plasma" for themselves, certainly not "thousands". There are only about a total of about 8000 professional astrophysicists on the planet. I doubt that a 1000 of them could even describe EU/PC theory and I've never met a single one that described it *accurately*. You're just guessing now as to how many of them even know what EU/PC theory is. Selfsim is *clueless* and he can't even keep his own stories straight about something as simple as the neutrino predictions of EU.PC solar models! If he's your best resource, he's totally out to lunch, and totally out of his depth on this topic.



So if they have a clue, how come every dark matter lab test has produced exactly nothing? How come none of them can name a single empirical source of 'dark energy' if they've been studying this concept for years? How come they can't explain why dark energy retains a constant density over multiple increases in volume? Why are they still using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe 95 percent of their own theory if they're so 'knowledgeable" on cosmology?

[Staff edit].



You keep participating in this thread, don't you? Apparently it matters to *you* otherwise you won't have involved yourself in this thread in the first place.



They A) don't understand their own model or they wouldn't need to use 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance in the first place. They B) don't understand EU.PC theory or they wouldn't be running around claiming that EU/PC solar models predict 'no neutrinos' and then contradict themselves in the very same post by quoting an EU/PC advocate who predicts neutrinos!

They don't know what's "best" because they don't actually 'know' anything about either theory!



I've debated them for over 10 years now and I can say without any doubt whatsoever that they have no understanding of EU.PC theory whatsoever, as evidenced by selfsims clueless statement about EU/PC models (plural) predicting no neutrinos.



If it actually worked as you claim, they'd have something to show for the billions of dollars with of dark matter "tests" at LHC, LUX, PandaX, Xenon-1T, etc. Evidently it *doesn't* work and they don't care that it doesn't work.



Will you ever admit that I'm allowed to "lack belief" in their claim without empirical evidence to support it?



Your "smear by association' is getting old and boring. I'm promoting empirical physics (vaccinations), whereas you're promoting dark mystical voodoo as a "better" alternative.



No, just noting how it works in reality.



It does:





Birkeland already did that. Alfven already did that. Peratt already did that. Lerner already did that. I already did that too.



Nope, you're promoting theology in four metaphysical/supernatural constructs which enjoy *zero* empirical laboratory evidence. Why do you reject the concept of God yet you embrace four different supernatural constructs? That's not even a rational choice from my perspective. I could see why you might toss out *all* metaphysical concepts, but you seem to pick and choose between them in a purely ad hoc manner.

No idea.

However, I don't understand why you seem to think that if your ideas are wrong that I should be able to prove it. I don't understand it, I haven't studied it, and I don't plan on studying it.

All I know is that the people who actually study this stuff disagree with you, and I'm fairly convinced that they are far better qualified to understand this stuff than you are! Unless you can convince me otherwise (such as by publishing peer reviewed papers and convincing the astrophysical community), I will continue to consider your position incorrect.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Right. You talk about "Michael, Michael, Michael" in every single one of you posts and you consistently and intentionally misrepresent my statements in every post, and when I point out that absurd behavior, it's somehow a "personal attack" against you? Wow You accused me of misrepresenting Scott's model when it fact it is you who have been consistently doing so since day one.

Stop talking about me, stick to the topic, and stop misrepresenting my statements and stop misrepresenting Scott's model!
I wonder how many people are going to report this post for having their intelligence insulted.
Anyone who can read can decide for themselves who exactly is misrepresenting Scott.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yep .. agreed .. sure is!

Not only has Michael ignored the reference in Scott’s link which I mentioned previously but in the very video posted, Scott states that fusion also occurs in the Chromosphere which is the layer above the Photosphere.
Note that the word Photosphere is defined as the thickness of an optical layer which goes from transparent to opaque in the visible spectrum.
The optical layer thickness is not the same for gamma ray photons.

What is remarkable is that Michael seems totally oblivious that in his efforts of saving Scott’s model by changing the goalposts is in fact acknowledging the model is wrong.

So yes the absence of gamma radiation kills off Scott’s model.
The other killer is that the solar wind which is composed of both positive ions and electrons are accelerated in the same direction.
This totally contradicts the behaviour of charge carriers moving through an electric field where depending on the charge it is going to be accelerated or decelerated.

Your point about the Sun possessing an absorption spectrum indicating a relatively cool photosphere is another reason why Scott’s model fails.

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 ...
Ah yes the automatic assumption that z-pinches exist, if only mainstream theory was that simple.
Plasma physics has advanced considerably since the time of Alfven particularly in the area of defining magnetic fields in plasmas as dynamical systems.
This ironically now relates to Scott’s other topic force free fields.
As discussed previously the only force free field known in the solar system is the solar corona where the ratio of the plasma pressure to its magnetic pressure β<<1.
The dynamical system of a force free field is defined by its Lagrangian but if the time integral of the Lagrangian doesn’t vary it is found that magnetic flux tubes are a physical condition for the static case.
It is a remarkable example of a complicated piece of mathematics leading to the explanation of coronal loops.

The magnetic field of plasma flowing inside coronal loops is in a force free state hence it is impossible for a z pinch to exist.
A z pinch will compress the plasma increasing its pressure and the β<<1 requirement for a force free field is not possible.
In essence a z pinch destroys the very existence of coronal loops.


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.

I get a real laugh that laboratory tests are supposed to form the basis of theories.
After all one of the earliest theories of the Sun was a humungous sphere of burning coal.
Yet people have been burning lumps of coal in labs for centuries and yet this model never survived.

I wonder why?:doh:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I'm only going to respond to a couple of Michael's queries because I'm finding the arguments he presents as being way too dogmatic and the thinking behind them way too entrenched. I'm not at all sure where such characteristics are coming from (meaning whether they are coming from Scott's ideas, or Michael's) ... so this is not intended as a 'personal attack' on Michael, I need to make that abundantly clear.
Why? Because you won't bother to read his book for yourself or even listen to his direct statements on his website? Why be at my mercy in the first place, and why not read them for yourself?
Firstly, I have not disclosed 'my readings' simply because this is totally irrelevant. It is irrelevant because you are presenting what you refer to as 'EU/PC theory'. I am testing the validity of your claims in order to make visible any semblance of consistency about them, and of the supposed 'EU/PC theory'.

That is the scientific method being applied to your claims .. nothing more.

Michael said:
You keep falsely asserting that his model should expect 'high levels of gamma radiation" when in fact the gamma radiation would be absorbed by the photoshere in Scott's model. Why do you keep making that same false statement over and over again when there is *at least* 500Km of photosphere material between his "true surface" and the surface of the photosphere?
No 'false assertions' because (from Scott's Fusion in the Double Layer):
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
Either Scott doesn't know what the photosphere is .. or you have a problem with what he wrote in the above quote taken from his commentary on his website(?)
 
Last edited:
  • 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

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Not only has Michael ignored the reference in Scott’s link which I mentioned previously but in the very video posted, Scott states that fusion also occurs in the Chromosphere which is the layer above the Photosphere.
Yes .. (as per Scott's own words in my last post #70)!

sjastro said:
Note that the word Photosphere is defined as the thickness of an optical layer which goes from transparent to opaque in the visible spectrum.
The optical layer thickness is not the same for gamma ray photons.
Yes!! :)
And thank you!
The only question that remains for me is: Is that how Scott is using using the term (or is he doing a Thornhill by confusing definitions as per Thornhill's redfined neutrino gobbledygook)?

sjastro said:
What is remarkable is that Michael seems totally oblivious that in his efforts of saving Scott’s model by changing the goalposts is in fact acknowledging the model is wrong.
Yes! I agree. I'm finding Michael's commentary as muddying the waters to the point of being utterly nonsensical (from where I'm sitting).
And this is not a personal attack on Michael .. but in all honesty, something is seriously absent in his commentary resulting in things that just don't make physical sense to me ... (and creating much confusion).

sjastro said:
So yes the absence of gamma radiation kills off Scott’s model.
The other killer is that the solar wind which is composed of both positive ions and electrons are accelerated in the same direction.
This totally contradicts the behaviour of charge carriers moving through an electric field where depending on the charge it is going to be accelerated or decelerated.
I totally agree! These aspects are also in the back of my mind whilst I'm reading what Michael is arguing .. which is probably accounts for the volume of the alarm bells going off as I read it!

sjastro said:
Your point about the Sun possessing an absorption spectrum indicating a relatively cool photosphere is another reason why Scott’s model fails.
Again: 'Yes'!

sjastro said:
Ah yes the automatic assumption that z-pinches exist, if only mainstream theory was that simple.
Plasma physics has advanced considerably since the time of Alfven particularly in the area of defining magnetic fields in plasmas as dynamical systems.
This ironically now relates to Scott’s other topic force free fields.
Oh good grief! :eek:Don't get me started on this again! :rolleyes:

sjastro said:
As discussed previously the only force free field known in the solar system is the solar corona where the ratio of the plasma pressure to its magnetic pressure β<<1.
The dynamical system of a force free field is defined by its Lagrangian but if the time integral of the Lagrangian doesn’t vary it is found that magnetic flux tubes are a physical condition for the static case.
Makes sense cause the time integral would be a constant (ie: unchanging) structure of some kind .. the static tube(?)

sjastro said:
It is a remarkable example of a complicated piece of mathematics leading to the explanation of coronal loops.
'Remarkable' might be an understatement there .. very cool (elegant) I'd say! :)

sjastro said:
The magnetic field of plasma flowing inside coronal loops is in a force free state hence it is impossible for a z pinch to exist.
A z pinch will compress the plasma increasing its pressure and the β<<1 requirement for a force free field is not possible.
In essence a z pinch destroys the very existence of coronal loops.
QED to Scott's 'EU/PC Electric Sun theory'!

sjastro said:
I get a real laugh that laboratory tests are supposed to form the basis of theories.
After all one of the earliest theories of the Sun was a humungous sphere of burning coal.
Yet people have been burning lumps of coal in labs for centuries and yet this model never survived.

I wonder why?:doh:
Imposing this restrictive ideologically based notion seriously constrains thinking! And for what reason? Why do this? It automatically creates the basis for denying the existence of things we can see happening in obviously seriously extreme astronomical environments (like stellar atmospheres)!

Labs are about deliberately controlling experimental variables in order to produce outcomes which are already known to manifest themselves - in advance. (Aka 'planeterrellas', plasma balls and high temperature z-pinches).

Who's controlling the Sun? Scott and his 'ideas'? :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
sjastro said:
I wonder how many people are going to report this post for having their intelligence insulted.
Anyone who can read can decide for themselves who exactly is misrepresenting Scott.
Hmm .. I'm finding this comment as being pretty insulting also:
.. You mean you confused *yourself* with your own strawman? Maybe you should stop resorting to the use of strawmen then.
The 'strawman' happens to be the stellar structure description derived from the density, temperature, total pressure, luminosity and energy generation rate, in a Standard Solar Model star!

The Standard Solar Model, of course, is used throughout the scientific community .. and even by Scott and other 'EU theorists' as well!

(Ie: Not a bad 'strawman' to 'confuse' oneself with .. and that's even regardless of the exclamation point of the added Michael provided 'self-confusion' insult! :rolleyes: )
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

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 will remain closed.
You (plural) completely ignored the mod hat
and continued right on flaming and goading.

MOD HAT OFF
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.