Because Doppler measurements show one lobe leaving the object and being blue-shifted towards us, and the other lobe leaving the object and being red shifted away from us. Show me a z-pinch that can do that! That is why ouch!
Ah, now I see the basis of *your* confusion.
Two z-pinch processes and jets would do that. Sometime you should lookup the term 'homopolar generator' in relationship to Alfven's papers and his work. Have you read Alfven's book or Peratt's book?
According to Alfven, many objects in space generate jets near the poles as current flows into the object along the poles and the current flows out around the equator region. In that scenario you'd expect electrons flowing in at the poles and ions flowing out of the poles and electrons flowing out around the equator. Pretty standard stuff in Alfven's book. Did you ever read "Cosmic Plasma" for yourself?
Scott is doing nothing more than 'looks like a bunny', and pretending that it's science. It isn't.
Observation and pattern recognition is a key element of science. It's not like your mainstream models work particularly well mathematically as your convection problem and your dark matter fiasco has clearly demonstrated over the past few years. Even the last SN1A study based on a larger data sets showed only about a 3 sigma likelihood of acceleration, much too small to be considered a "discovery" in physics. I wouldn't be so quick to ignore the value of pattern recognition.
The same applies to Thorhill's nonsense claims about supernovae.
I'm not convinced that is his issue or your misunderstanding of his model.
And I've already said that it isn't a problem of no neutrinos,
Well, then why don't any of you correct the nonsensical claims related to 'no neutrinos' on your blogs? Your public criticisms of EU/PC models are worse than wrong, they're absurd.
it is a problem of which type,
Thornhill and Scott predict all types of neutrinos from their model (again it's not my personal favorite, but they do predict all types), they just predict them *differently* than the standard model.
Do you have a quote to show me where they predict fewer of them or something?
They do make unique predictions with respect to the location of neutrino output but we don't really have the technology (neutrino resolution) to know if they're mostly coming from the core or from around the entire sun yet.
All of which serves to falsify their silliness.
You seem to be making a lot of false assumptions and false assertions from where I sit. Again, I'm not emotionally attached to their anode solar model, but I can't just call it "silly" without better neutrino resolution, and better information about the double layering system around the electrode.
Wrong. You quoted Scott as saying:
So, where does Scott have this DL? Above the photosphere!
http://electric-cosmos.org/SolarWind.pdf
See also the figure 2 in:
http://electric-cosmos.org/Electronic Sun.pdf
Where has Scott got the DL? In the chromosphere!
I suggest you skip to about 1:25:00 in the movie and watch the experiments they've been conducting with double layers. You seem to be under a false impression that there are only a couple of double layers whereas the experiments show a series of concentric rings around the electrode.
SDO, and specifically heliosiesmology studies would suggest that the surface of the electrode is actually located around 4800Km *underneath* of the surface of the photosphere and the photosphere itself is simply one of many double layers which surround the electrode.
Given that his source of neutrinos, as quoted and bolded above, is from a z-pinch in this DL, then it is well above the photosphere.
No, actually it's not *above* the photosphere, it's occurring *inside* the upper layers of the double layer of the photosphere and below the surface of the photosphere.
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.
Emphasis mine. The photosphere is simply *one* double layer around the electrode and the fusion occurs *inside* (in) that double layer, not above it.
And would be exceedingly obvious due to the gamma rays produced.
If Scott were were claiming that the fusion was occurring inside the double layer of the chromophere, you would be right, but he's claiming it's occurring inside the double layer of the photosphere, below the surface.
Let's gloss over the point that creating fusion at the temperatures and pressures of the chromosphere are impossible.
Gah! The z-pinch process related to magnetic ropes/coronal loops generates plasma temperatures into the millions of degrees and they originate *under* the surface of the photosphere. The fusion occurs inside the pinch processes inside the double layer, not in the *whole* double layer. In fact the vast majority of the plasma pinches never rise up through the surface of the photosphere. The largest coronal loop pinches do leave their heat and magnetic field signatures on the surface of the photosphere, but the vast majority of the pinch processes occur *under* that surface. It's not the average temperature of any double layer that's important, it the temperature inside the plasma pinches that generate fusion and they range into the tens of millions of degrees at times. Just look at a 94A or 131A SDO image.
So, as I said, whether they predict neutrinos or not is an irrelevance. The model sucks, and is disproven by observation. Or lack thereof.
All you've done is demonstrate that your understanding of his model is *simply wrong*. If you were picking on something that he actually predicted, I'd be impressed, but thus far every criticism you've put forth seems to be based on your own misunderstanding of his model, not his model.
In summary, I would say "clueless" is being rather kind.
Calling your misconceptions about his model "clueless" is being rather kind too I'm afraid.
Particularly when you throw in the nonsense about electric comets, electric cratering, electric volcanoes, and all that Velikovskian woo about Venus doing handbrake turns around the solar system a few weeks ago last Tuesday. How would you describe people who believe that sort of nonsense? Befuddled? Scientifically illiterate? Clueless will do for me.
I'm not personally a big fan of any of those ideas either, but that's not really what defines EU/PC theory to begin with. It is ultimately a *cosmology* theory that is related to Alfven's work and Peratt's work on cosmology. There are at least three solar models to choose from in EU/PC theory, including Birkeland's internally powered cathode model, Alfven's relatively standard solar model, and Juergen's partially externally powered anode model. I'd say the anode model is probably my least favorite solar model actually, but that's just me.
I hate to break it to you but not many folks in the EU/PC community are huge fans of Velikovski or his work, and he's never defined EU/PC cosmology theory in the first place. He's a bit player at best. Birkeland really began EU/PC theory about a century ago with his solar system experiments, and Alfven took it one step further and turned it into a modern 'cosmology' model. Thornhill might personally support Velikovski, but Scott never even mentions him in his book nor does he discuss any of the things on your list. Unlike LCDM proponents, we don't all think in lockstep. We're a diverse community. You'd be wise to recognize that EU/PC theory is first and foremost a *cosmology* theory written primarily by Alfven and Peratt. The solar models, and solar system concepts tend to be where the EU/PC community splinters and goes in different directions.
For instance, we all embrace Alfven's work and Peratt's work on cosmology theory, but I personally prefer Birkeland's internally powered cathode solar model over the relatively standard solar model that Alfven described in his book. Others in the EU/PC community like Scott also embrace Alfven's work on cosmology, but he prefers Juergen's anode solar model.
From the standpoint of *cosmology*, Alfven and Peratt describe and define EU/PC theory, certainly not Velikovski. Choice of solar models tends to be very much up to the individual. A *few* folks in the EU/PC community may support at least some of Velikovski's work but I'd say it's a tiny minority at best. You seem to be judging a cosmology model based on a person who's not even important with respect to EU/PC cosmology theory in the first place.
This is why I would say that most critics of the EU/PC *cosmology* theory know little or nothing about EU/PC cosmology theory in the first place! It seems like most of you haven't read Afven's work or Birkeland's work or even Scott's book for yourself. Rather you seem to get all your *misinformation* from a few random blogs in cyberspace which contain more *false* information than accurate information.
