Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Thanks again for taking the time to call out our suspicions about Scott's underhanded and sleezy tactics. Shame on him .. disgraceful 'professionalism'.I had a reply from Dr. Alpaslan;
...
Also, I was just reading up on IanW's link, (on Alfven's photosphere initiated coronal double layer idea), here:I note that Michael has resumed his campaign in trying to destroy the professional reputation of Brian Koberlein this time at Reddits.
Not only is Michael using Reddits to engage in personal attacks against members in this forum to get around his current suspension, but he is now baiting members to confront Koberlein’s “dishonesty” in claiming that neutrinos do not exist in Scott’s and Thornhill’s models.
In other words Michael wants members here to carry on with his hatchet job on Koberlein which ultimately led to his suspension for one year.
My golf clubs emit neutrinos.
If anyone accepted this notion on the basis because I said so would be extremely naïve and gullible.
Yet Scott and Thornhill can make the same sweeping generalizations about their models producing neutrinos to the point of it being an afterthought.
I have yet to see anything where Scott and Thornhill explain how neutrinos are formed in their models or a whether the production rate compares to experimental values.
Since Scott and Thornhill only have to state their models produce neutrinos and nothing else indicates the very low standards these models are held to by their supporters.
The facts are that neither model can produce neutrinos.
In Scott’s model neutrinos are produced in the chromosphere and photosphere.
As anyone with even an elementary of knowledge nuclear physics understands nuclei must have a sufficiently high kinetic energy through high temperatures to overcome the Coulomb barrier for fusion to occur.
Using Michael’s “it can be reproduced in the laboratory” nonsense fails because plasma temperatures in Z pinch machines such as Tokamaks require plasma temperatures of up to 100 million K for fusion to occur.
These high temperatures are necessary as a Z pinch is not capable of producing densities that are found in the Sun’s core.
By comparison the highest temperatures in the chromosphere are around 20000K.
Where does Scott explain how Z pinch fusion can occur at such low temperatures and densities?
Then there are the other unfortunate side effects such as the Earth being burnt to a crisp and irradiated with gamma photons.
Thornhill’s model is even more ridiculous because he boldly declares anti matter doesn’t even exist and a neutrino is composed of an electron and positron which he considers is not an anti particle.
Thornhill has decided to make up his own particle which he has called a neutrino which bears absolutely no resemblance to its actual physical properties.
By having fusion at or near the surface results in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram being completely wrong given the maximum effective temperatures achieved in stars is around 30000K.
Scott’s and Thornhill’s models would predict temperatures in the range of tens of millions K.
Koberlein was spot on by claiming neither model produces neutrinos.
There is more on the lack of observability aspect .. but I haven't consumed it just yet.Foukai etal said:The thickness of a (corona) single double layer is far too small to produce a thermal emission measure. Furthermore, any neutral atoms would have their electrons stripped from the nucleii by such an enormous electric field since the potential drop across an atom would be eEa~118V where a is the Bohr radius. This potential drop is much larger than the ionisation energy'.
Also, I was just reading up on IanW's link, (on Alfven's photosphere initiated coronal double layer idea), here:
Electric fields in the solar atmosphere - A review
Authors: Foukal, P. & Hinata, S.
Journal: Solar Physics (ISSN 0038-0938), vol. 132, April 1991
If I'm reading this correctly, they say (at the bottom of page 319), that:
There is more on the lack of observability aspect .. but I haven't consumed it just yet.
Most theories for the energy release in flares are based on reconnection and make no direct reference to the large-scale current. The only standard flare model that takes the current into account directly is that of Alfven & Carlqvist (1967), but this model is seriously flawed. A central assumption of the model is that magnetic energy is released as the current decays (due to a postulated formation of a double layer), but the timescale for a flare is much shorter than the time required (the Alfven propagation time) to affect the source of the current deep in the solar atmosphere. Hence, no significant decay of the current can occur during a flare.
There have also been proposed several models for flares where magnetic reconnection is not assumed. One of them is found at the Alfvén’s current disruption model (Alfvén and Carlqvist, 1967). The other models are proposed by Akasofu (1984), Uchida and Shibata (1988), Melrose (1997), and so on. Many of these models assume energy release inside a flaring loop, thus they are not consistent with those observations provided by Yohkoh, such as loop-top hard X-ray source and plasmoid ejection above a soft X-ray loop.
Baiting with his persistent lies about Koberlein’s article. This has been addressed before in this forum. The article is based on the freely available literature (a PDF) that explicitly says that Sun is not fusion powered and does not give any mechanism for the observed neutrinos being generated by the electric sun. A PDF that is endorsed by Thornhill, Scott and other EU writers.Not only is Michael using Reddits to engage in personal attacks against members in this forum to get around his current suspension, but he is now baiting members to confront Koberlein’s “dishonesty” in claiming that neutrinos do not exist in Scott’s and Thornhill’s models.
The PDF claim being addressed is that neutrinos do not exist in Tom Findlay's description of the "model".Stars are electrically charged masses formed within galactic plasmas. They are not heated by nuclear fusion within their core, but rather by a flow of plasma, similar to a florescent light.
...
Reference: A Beginner’s View of Our Electric Universe by Tom Findlay (PDF)
What an inane, ridiculously stupid, unsupported, unituitive and completely unrelated comment (Mozina's) from a nobody who demonstrates complete ignorance of the reasoning for modelling electrical transmission through physical media!MichaelMozina said:That is a completely irrational argument by the way. The shortness of the timescale *favors* electrical discharge theory. The timescale of energy release doesn't relate to the distance from the power source, it relates to the current in double layers, and the overall current in the magnetic rope. An electrical discharge caused by shorting two wires together in your house isn't limited by the distance between your house and the power plant.Smithi said:I stumbled across another paper that also references Alfven & Carlqvist's model;
A SOLAR FLARE MODEL BASED ON MAGNETIC RECONNECTION BETWEEN CURRENT-CARRYING LOOPS
Melrose, D. B.Melrose said:Most theories for the energy release in flares are based on reconnection and make no direct reference to the large-scale current. The only standard flare model that takes the current into account directly is that of Alfven & Carlqvist (1967), but this model is seriously flawed. A central assumption of the model is that magnetic energy is released as the current decays (due to a postulated formation of a double layer), but the timescale for a flare is much shorter than the time required (the Alfven propagation time) to affect the source of the current deep in the solar atmosphere. Hence, no significant decay of the current can occur during a flare.
Hi RC ..welcome to the 'split' conversation between Michael's Reddit rant and ours....
The "models" are delusional because they are not scientific models - they are fantasies that make no real predictions.
That is interesting. Michael denied the clear English in Somov's book for many years (a chapter with a title about magnetic reconnection in vacuum and he insisted it contained plasma). Michael denied the clear physics in Somov's book for many years (the utterly impossible physics of two equal parallel currents being plasma). Now he believes a response from Somov!Michael owes you an explicit apology now as Smithi/IanW has finally gotten hold of Somov in so far as his declaration that his conductors in his now-famous diagram, were indeed, intended as being solid. Michael now acknowledges Somov's response, too ..
He owes ya one after all of his abuse over your attempts to tell him that (.. what for some 10 years now?)
Tim Thompson was the one who cited the physics about induction/MRx timescales.Thompson: It most certainly is not. And to the surprise of no one, we have already been down this road. The key to understanding why it cannot be induction is that induction can change only the geometry of a magnetic field, but can never change its topology.
It is not a simulation of the Sun. It is a more advanced than Birkeland 100 year old experiment, demonstration of Aurora Borealis.Dr Gabrielle Provan of the University of Leicester Physics & Astronomy department demonstrates how Aurora Borealis (or the Northern Lights) are created.
The Magnetic Helicity Sign of Filament Chirality - IOPscienceChae said:A solar prominence has either dextral or sinistral chirality depending on its axial field direction. We determine the magnetic helicity sign of filaments using high-resolution observations performed by Transition Region And Coronal Explorer. At EUV wavelengths, filaments sometimes appear as mixtures of bright threads and dark threads. This characteristic has enabled us to discern overlying threads and underlying ones and to determine the sign of magnetic helicity based on the assumption that the helicity sign of two crossing thread segments is the same as that of the filament. Our results support the notion that dextral filaments have negative magnetic and that sinistral filaments have positive helicity.
No posts on the Reddit thread for 5 days, then some unpronounceable (& unintelligible) poster mentions that some of 'your' posts were reported (Mozina's?). He then questions ianw's continued participation in the thread and goes on to tell a sob story about being his banned at AskPhysics for his own attempts at explaining Maxwell's equations!?!
He then concludes that Reddit is a paradise for trolls(?)
Is all that EU 'logic' at play? (Must be because I can't see any logic whatsoever in any of that particular post).
Awsome thanks for posting, the formulas in the PDF.Yes, Tusenfem first brought up this paper at ISF. For example;
International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Problems With Magnetic Reconnection
International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - [Merged] Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)
Then there is the recent direct observation of reconnection in a solar flare;
Direct Observation of Two-step Magnetic Reconnection in a Solar Flare
Gou, T. et al. (2017)
Direct Observation of Two-step Magnetic Reconnection in a Solar Flare - IOPscience (free access)
Which is why nobody follows Alfven & Carlqvist's double layer model any more. It likely cannot happen in the first place, and direct observation confirms MR as the cause. To continue to believe in such a model is therefore nothing more than a faith-based belief, owing more to hero worship than to science.
EDIT:
I stumbled across another paper that also references Alfven & Carlqvist's model;
A SOLAR FLARE MODEL BASED ON MAGNETIC RECONNECTION BETWEEN CURRENT-CARRYING LOOPS
Melrose, D. B.
https://sydney.edu.au/science/physics/pdfs/local/melrose/flaremodel97.pdf
It would appear that Melrose's model, above, is also flawed;
Solar Flares: Magnetohydrodynamic Processes
Shibata, K. & Magara, T. (2011)
Solar Flares: Magnetohydrodynamic Processes (free access)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?