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.
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.