New Paper Eliminates The Need For Dark Matter To Explain Galaxy Rotation Patterns

Status
Not open for further replies.

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,852
3,887
✟273,723.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I simply pointed out that there are good references on this topic (typically the authors themselves) and bad ones, and pointing out to him that everything that he's been arguing thus far sounds like he's been hanging out with bad references on this source material.
So you are now trying to whitewash this thread as if the personal attacks never occurred.
I strongly suggest you edit your posts or I will report you to the moderators.
I have an immense amount of respect for that individual who doesn't deserve your vile and libellous personal attacks particularly at the Tbolts forum.
Whatever my faults, I certainly do *not* go out of my way to misrepresent mainstream theory. I may not agree with it, but I don't misrepresent it.
Seriously you do not have a grasp on reality.
I have never come across an individual who so misrepresents mainstream theory as well as the posts of individuals as many can attest to here.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
... Whatever my faults, I certainly do *not* go out of my way to misrepresent mainstream theory. I may not agree with it, but I don't misrepresent it.
Are you serious? o_O

You persistently demonstrate that you don't have a clue about even the most basic Physics principles (eg: your bizarre ideas about Potential Energy in the 'Time-Hawkings' thread). Then there's your 0.5=1 math nonsense and now, your failure to grasp the shell model math describing surface brightness. You then go on to misrepresent a basic paradox (Olber's) which forms one of the bases of most cosmological thinking! You can't even read textbook physics describing reconnection in a vacuum (as demonstrated by RC). You've demonstrated that you don't understand Maxwell's description of magnetic fields, nor the how's and why's of basic capacitors functionality .. the list is endless!

I don't think you're even in a position to assess your own flaws let alone your ridiculously skewed commentaries on mainstream theory. In fact, you don't even make the attempt at adopting the elementary philosophical tenets behind the scientific process when its pointed out to you!

I've seen delusions in my time, but yours just took the cake!
 
Upvote 0

ianw16

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
240
183
62
bournemouth
✟9,234.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
In EU/PC theory, the Birkeland current is the basic current carrying structure of all currents in space. Plasma scales many orders of magnitude. The mainstream euphemistically calls these things "jets", or space slinky's, or filaments, or "magnetic ropes", but they are all basically just the same thing, namely current carrying filaments of all sizes that are 'pinched' into well defined, more dense regions which act to carry the currents through space.

I know perfectly well what a Birkeland current and a z-pinch are. The current flows from x to z, say. At a point between x & z, let's call it y, the current is magnetically pinched. You will notice that the current continues to flow in one direction, from x - z. It does not magically start flowing simultaneously from y - x and y - z. Simple. And that is why Scott and Thornhill's 'looks like a bunny' 'science' is worthless.
A simple check of Doppler measurements, which had already been done, would have showed them to be wrong. For instance, here is a paper by Balick, on the M2-9 nebula:

M2-9 - A planetary nebula with an eruptive nucleus?
Balick, B.
1989AJ.....97..476B Page 478

Figure 2 of that paper shows us the velocity data. It shows NII and H-alpha heading away from the central star. Nothing is flowing towards, and through, the star. Therefore it cannot be a z-pinch. A simple check of the existing literature would have told Scott that, and he could have saved his time writing up such nonsense. Given that he did, why would we take anything else that he says seriously?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

ianw16

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
240
183
62
bournemouth
✟9,234.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Thornhill and Velikovsky did not even propose a separate cosmology theory to begin with, so who cares what they think? I don't happen to agree with Thornhill on every topic in EU/PC theory, so it's no big deal to me personally.

Well, it is David Talbott's site on which you post. Do you not find it a tad embarrassing to be associated with people who hold such unscientific beliefs? And Velikovsky most certainly did propose a separate cosmology. Ever heard of 'Cosmos without Gravitation'? By the loon Velikovsky?
Cosmos Without Gravitation

Sound familiar? Everything proposed by EU wooists comes back to Velikovsky. Why do you think that Thornhill, armed with his bachelor's degree, is trying (painfully badly) to overturn everything we know about gravity? Because he needs Venus hurtling around the solar system, as described by Velikovsky, without it breaking fundamental laws of physics. Thornhill's mindset is, 'Velikovsky said it, so it must be true. Therefore the laws of physics are wrong. I shall rewrite them.' He wants comets to be made of rock, so that he can have these imaginary interplanetary thunderbolts (hence the name of the website you frequent) blasting them off of rocky planets a week ago last Tuesday. When the density measurements, among countless other evidence, show it not to be rock, then he wants to claim that those measurements are affected by some non-existent repulsion between the comet and the orbiter. Which is trivially shown to be wrong. He's a loon. These are the people you are hanging out with Michael. Why would anybody take you, or them, seriously?
And just for the record, neither Alfven nor Peratt believed the Sun to be powered by anything other than fusion in the core. I doubt you'll find many of the vanishingly small number of PC proponents who believe otherwise. That is purely an invention of EU wooists, based on the unpublished scribblings of a non-event EE called Juergens.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Well, it is David Talbott's site on which you post. Do you not find it a tad embarrassing to be associated with people who hold such unscientific beliefs?

Not really. If you're not embarrassed to be supporting four different types of metaphysical cosmological nonsense, and a broken solar model, why should I be embarrassed to be admit that I disagree with Dave on a few things?

And Velikovsky most certainly did propose a separate cosmology. Ever heard of 'Cosmos without Gravitation'? By the loon Velikovsky?
Cosmos Without Gravitation

What's the mathematical basis of his cosmology model if you think that's a "cosmology" model? I skimmed the file you suggested it seems to strictly discuss solar system phenomenon, and there's no mathematical models to be found anywhere in it! That doesn't look like a cosmology model to me.

Sound familiar? Everything proposed by EU wooists comes back to Velikovsky.

No, that's the kind of utter nonsense you probably heard on ridiculously wrong websites somewhere in cyberspace. Everything that is proposed by EU/PC theorists comes back to the lab work of Kristian Birkeland in terms of solar physics, and Hannes Alfven/Anthony Peratt in terms of cosmology models. You really should stop trying to "understand" EU/PC theory from random blogs, without actually reading the appropriate materials. Have you bothered to read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma yet? It is considered to be *the defining book* on EU/PC *cosmology* theory. Have you read Birkeland's work for yourself yet?

Why do you think that Thornhill, armed with his bachelor's degree, is trying (painfully badly) to overturn everything we know about gravity?

Probably for the same reason QM proponents are trying desperately to overturn it, and every proponent of a 'theory of everything' is trying to overturn it. Why would you condemn Thornhill for trying to tie all the forces of nature together when Einstein himself tried (and failed) to do the very same thing?

Because he needs Venus hurtling around the solar system, as described by Velikovsky, without it breaking fundamental laws of physics.

Psst:
NASA - Jupiter's Youthful Travels Redefined Solar System

The idea of planets roaming around the solar system is not as controversial as you seem to imagine, although the idea of it happening within recorded *human history* is rather dubious.

Thornhill's mindset is, 'Velikovsky said it, so it must be true.

You seem to be under another of those false impressions that Thornhill and Velikovsky are the basis of EU/PC theory but you can't even provide us with a mathematical cosmological model by either of them! What's up with that nonsense?

You really have to stop getting all your EU/PC ideas from bogus blogs, and you really should read Alfven's work and Peratt's work. They define the *cosmology* theory, not Thornhill or Velikovky.

Therefore the laws of physics are wrong. I shall rewrite them.'

Einstein rewrote them. :) What exactly do you think "dark energy" claims were all about? Space expansion? Who ever heard of "space expansion" during Newton's tenure?

He wants comets to be made of rock, so that he can have these imaginary interplanetary thunderbolts (hence the name of the website you frequent) blasting them off of rocky planets a week ago last Tuesday. When the density measurements, among countless other evidence, show it not to be rock, then he wants to claim that those measurements are affected by some non-existent repulsion between the comet and the orbiter. Which is trivially shown to be wrong.

I tend to agree with you that his comet ideas seem pretty silly, but then again, my interest in EU/PC theory has *nothing* to do with comet theory in the first place.

He's a loon.

That's just a childish personal attack. I could easily say the same thing about Guth, or the anyone promoting LCDM if I were trying to be rude. Whatever his faults, their no worse that the faults of mainstream LCDM proponents who cannot show any empirical cause/effect evidence in any lab to support any of their claims.

These are the people you are hanging out with Michael.

So what? Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors. You're hanging out with promoters of metaphysical woo. What's the *empirical* difference? The fact I know them doesn't mean that I even agree with them, so your association is really nothing but a childish smear tactic.

Why would anybody take you, or them, seriously?

Well, for starters because the ideas I promote actually work in the lab:


Why should I take your solar model seriously when Alfven called the magnetic reconnection claim 'pseudoscience' and your convection predictions have been shown to be *way* off?

And just for the record, neither Alfven nor Peratt believed the Sun to be powered by anything other than fusion in the core.

Bingo! Now you understand why I embrace their work whereas I do not embrace Jeurgen's solar model.

I doubt you'll find many of the vanishingly small number of PC proponents who believe otherwise.

Myself included.

That is purely an invention of EU wooists, based on the unpublished scribblings of a non-event EE called Juergens.

Juergen's didn't write a cosmology model either, and it's easy to reject his solar model and still embrace Birkeland, Alfven, Peratt and Lerner.

Well, you got at least one thing right in terms of Alfven's solar model and that's a good sign, but your assertion that Thornhill and/or Velikovky wrote a cosmology theory is ridiculously wrong. Where did you get the idea that Velikovki or Thornhill defines EU/PC *cosmology* theory?
 
Upvote 0

ianw16

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
240
183
62
bournemouth
✟9,234.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
So, to get back to why we know that Scott and Thornhill's description of neutrino production is wrong;
Firstly where, in the written material by either of those two, or Juergens, do they claim that the neutrino production is anywhere other than the top of the photosphere? No links to woo videos, thanks. We are discussing Scott and Thornhill's claims, as made in writing. As already mentioned, gamma ray production, or the lack of it, kills that nonsense stone dead. This is what I could find:

Thornhill:
To sum up, the electrical model of the Sun requires that neutrinos of all “flavours” are produced by heavy element nucleosynthesis in the photosphere of the Sun.......It is simpler to assume that the energy we receive from the Sun is coming from where we see it – at the surface, or photosphere,..

Scott I have already quoted, saying that fusion occurs in a DL above the photosphere. I await confirmation that this is not the case, and he has buried it deep within the Sun, to prevent detection of gamma rays. Which we can detect from solar flares, by the way.


So, why do we know their description (such as it is) is wrong? Observation. They are claiming that this photospheric fusion (impossible at that temperature and density) produces heavy elements. I'm not sure what heavy elements they are talking about. Thornhill doesn't believe in supernovae, and therefore thinks the elements heavier than Fe do not come from them. He proposes that they are made by all stars. In the photosphere. Which is a bit lame, as we would detect them. And don't. They would also produce neutrinos with different energies than that from p-p fusion. So, if he was right, we should see counts of high energy neutrinos that are way out of line with what is predicted. This is not seen. Until fairly recently, it was very difficult to detect the low energy neutrinos from p-p fusion, which is the first link in the chain. This is the process that is predicted to produce the highest number of neutrinos, and therefore the vast majority of the energy to power the Sun. I have already linked to the paper where this detection is made. However, it is paywalled. So, some of ther highlights:

The cycle begins with the fusion of two protons into a deuteron, which occurs 99.76% of the time by means of the primary reaction
p + p ---->2H + positron + electron neutrino.

The Borexino detector, which is designed to minimize backgrounds from radioactive isotopes both within, and external to, the liquid scintillator target, made it possible to search for the very low-energy pp neutrinos. The measured solar pp neutrino flux is (6.6 +/- 0.7) x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1, in good agreement with the prediction of the standard solar model (SSM) (5.98 x (1 +/- 0.006) x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1).

And here (hopefully is Fig. 1 from the paper:

0b81df783044003


As can be seen (if I've posted it correctly) this shows that the vast majority of the neutrino flux is from p-p fusion. It also shows that fusion of different elements have different energies. This is how we know that heavy element fusion in the photosphere, as proposed by Scott and Thornhill, is not the reason for neutrino production. It is not the only reason, as mentioned previously. The lack of gamma rays is a killer, as is the temperature and density of the photosphere, which is not conducive to fusion. As also mentioned previously, their models suck, as can be seen by anybody even minimally educated in the relevant areas.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I know perfectly well what a Birkeland current and a z-pinch are.

That would make you more knowledgeable than the mainstream. The mainstream flat out denied their existence in space until the 1970's, when satellites in space first verified their existence. The mainstream as a whole still doesn't seem to understand them. They still call them everything from 'jets', to "magnetic ropes', "filaments" to space "slinky's' and even "Steve". They tend to flat out ignore the current flowing through such objects too, or at least they never discuss it.

The current flows from x to z, say. At a point between x & z, let's call it y, the current is magnetically pinched. You will notice that the current continues to flow in one direction, from x - z. It does not magically start flowing simultaneously from y - x and y - z. Simple.

Actually it's not as simple as you think. If you had read Scott's paper on Birkeland currents, you'd know they can become complex, with concentric layers of currents moving in opposite directions. Solar images show them changing directions too.

And that is why Scott and Thornhill's 'looks like a bunny' 'science' is worthless.

Scott's work includes math. Pattern recognition and observation are the foundations of science by the way.

A simple check of Doppler measurements, which had already been done, would have showed them to be wrong. For instance, here is a paper by Balick, on the M2-9 nebula:

M2-9 - A planetary nebula with an eruptive nucleus?
Balick, B.
1989AJ.....97..476B Page 478

Figure 2 of that paper shows us the velocity data. It shows NII and H-alpha heading away from the central star. Nothing is flowing towards, and through, the star.

How would you be sure that electrons don't flow toward the star?

Therefore it cannot be a z-pinch.

You're making unfounded assumptions about what we could expect to observe from pretty large distances with respect to electron flow.

A simple check of the existing literature would have told Scott that, and he could have saved his time writing up such nonsense. Given that he did, why would we take anything else that he says seriously?

It's irrational IMO that you'll take an unpublished blog seriously that erroneously claims that Scott's solar model predicts 'no neutrinos', but you won't take a published paper by Scott seriously. That's not even logical.

I also think you're dreaming if you actually believe that we can observe the directional flow of electrons at vast distances. We didn't even identify the majority of atoms around our own galaxy until just last year (and five years ago) when they found a halo of hydrogen gas that they never even knew existed last year, and a halo of hot plasma five years ago.
 
Upvote 0

ianw16

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
240
183
62
bournemouth
✟9,234.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
The idea of planets roaming around the solar system is not as controversial as you seem to imagine, although the idea of it happening within recorded *human history* is rather dubious.

Dubious? Lol. It is downright idiotic. And is the reason for the core beliefs of EU. Where do you think they are getting their thunderbolts to cause the ejection of rocks (comets) from planets in living memory? Or to carve out the Grand Canyon? Or Valles Marineris? Or much of the cratering we see on various planets? This is all Velikovskian woo, and Thornhill and Talbott believe it implicitly. It is lunacy. That is why Thornhill wants to explain gravity as some sort of EM woo.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

ianw16

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
240
183
62
bournemouth
✟9,234.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Actually it's not as simple as you think. If you had read Scott's paper on Birkeland currents, you'd know they can become complex, with concentric layers of currents moving in opposite directions. Solar images show them changing directions too.

Rubbish. The current still flows in one linear direction. The concentric layers would still be moving along the current, either all away from us, or all towards us. They would still be all blue shifted, or all red shifted. Scott even shows that in a figure in his awful paper.
 
  • 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

ianw16

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
240
183
62
bournemouth
✟9,234.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
  • Informative
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Are you serious? o_O

You persistently demonstrate that you don't have a clue about even the most basic Physics principles (eg: your bizarre ideas about Potential Energy in the 'Time-Hawkings' thread).

Yawn. Wake me up when you post the before and after pictures of your foot from the bowling ball experiment that I suggested. Greater distance between two objects equates to *greater* potential energy, not *less* (or zero) potential energy. That fact you'd even try to deny that means that you should have no problem trying the experiment that I suggested. Post the before and after images of your foot for us, and then you can claim that I'm wrong and not one moment sooner. :)

Then there's your 0.5=1 math nonsense

That was *your* math failure and *your* strawman, not mine. I simplified your messed up formula to a single variable inside the sqrt() function and I used the formula properly the first time through, unlike you.

and now, your failure to grasp the shell model math describing surface brightness.

Not only did I "grasp" the concept, I showed you why it's utterly wrong. There aren't 4 stars located in the 2AU shell as your argument requires, or 9 stars in the 3AU shell, so no shell could possibly be as bright as our own sun as you erroneously tried to claim!

You then go on to misrepresent a basic paradox (Olber's) which forms one of the bases of most cosmological thinking!

Except of course for the fact that Olber *solved* his own "paradox" with simple dust. ;) Then again, Einstein rejected your black hole claims, and Alfven flat out rejected your magnetic reconnection nonsense, but that never stops you folks from trying to rewrite history. :)

You can't even read textbook physics describing reconnection in a vacuum (as demonstrated by RC).

Oh that's just too funny! I'm still waiting for that non-existent math formula to describe a non zero rate of "reconnnection" without a plasma particle to your names. Somov's vacuum was *not* empty, like RC's vacuum. Somove has two plasma "currents" in his so called "vacuum", which *move* during the "reconnection" process. It includes plasma and the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle movement so it's consistent with the WIKI definition, whereas RC's vacuum was *empty* and did *not* convert magnetic field energy into charged particle movement like Somov. The fact you're still supporting RC's vacuum contraption nonsense says *volumes* and it only explains why Alfven flat out rejected the whole idea. You have no idea what the term "magnetic reconnection" even means! You can't even distinguish between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum and "magnetic reconnection"!

You've demonstrated that you don't understand Maxwell's description of magnetic fields, nor the how's and why's of basic capacitors functionality .. the list is endless!

LOL! The LED clearly says otherwise. :)

I don't think you're even in a position to assess your own flaws let alone your ridiculously skewed commentaries on mainstream theory.

At least I'm not claiming that any solar model predicts "no neutrinos" like you folks.

In fact, you don't even make the attempt at adopting the elementary philosophical tenets behind the scientific process when its pointed out to you!

I don't believe that astronomers even understand the real scientific process in the first place, which is how and why we got stuck with epicycles for centuries, and it's why we're stuck in the dark ages of metaphysical astronomy to this very day.

I've seen delusions in my time, but yours just took the cake!

That's really ironic coming from a guy that cannot demonstrate a single important aspect of their cosmology beliefs in a real lab experiment even after spending *billions* of dollars trying. Even most theists propose but one supernatural/metaphysical construct at worst case, but you need *four* of them in a single cosmology theory! Talk about delusions.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
So, to get back to why we know that Scott and Thornhill's description of neutrino production is wrong;
Firstly where, in the written material by either of those two, or Juergens, do they claim that the neutrino production is anywhere other than the top of the photosphere?

AFAIK, they don't claim that it occurs anywhere else, but that blows the 'no neutrino' claim away. Maybe you could explain that to your buddies RC, Selfsim and sjastro?

No links to woo videos, thanks. We are discussing Scott and Thornhill's claims, as made in writing.

I've posted their quotes in terms of the location of the neutrino production, and you're correct (unlike the rest of your friends).

As already mentioned, gamma ray production, or the lack of it, kills that nonsense stone dead.

You failed to produce any quote from Thornhill, Scott or Juergen's to support your claim that they "predict" excess gamma rays. You're putting words in their mouth that they didn't utter, much like that "no neutrino" nonsense.

This is what I could find:

Thornhill:
To sum up, the electrical model of the Sun requires that neutrinos of all “flavours” are produced by heavy element nucleosynthesis in the photosphere of the Sun.......It is simpler to assume that the energy we receive from the Sun is coming from where we see it – at the surface, or photosphere,..

Scott I have already quoted, saying that fusion occurs in a DL above the photosphere.

Emphasis in Thornhill's quote mine.

Woah! You just quoted Thornhill claiming that this process was happening *in* (not above) the photosphere, and now you're claiming it's happeneing *above* the photosphere. Where did you get that idea? Scott used the phrase "at the top of the photosphere" but the double layer *is* the photosphere (as in *in* the photosophere), not the chromosphere or the corona.

I await confirmation that this is not the case, and he has buried it deep within the Sun, to prevent detection of gamma rays.

Your own quote from Thornhill describes the process as occurring *in* the photosphere, not above it. I've already shown you solar satellite images that demonstrate that higher energy wavelengths are *absorbed* in the upper part of the photosphere too.

mossyohkoh.jpg


We don't see any yellow from the solar moss region! We only see the higher energy wavelengths from the tops of the largest loops *after* they rise into the corona.

Which we can detect from solar flares, by the way.

Solar flares typically take place above the surface of the photosphere. Magnetic ropes however begin *under* the surface of the photosphere as that image above demonstrates.

So, why do we know their description (such as it is) is wrong? Observation. They are claiming that this photospheric fusion (impossible at that temperature and density) produces heavy elements. I'm not sure what heavy elements they are talking about.

The blue parts of that image I just posted come from highly ionized iron atoms. "Those" heavy elements.

Thornhill doesn't believe in supernovae, and therefore thinks the elements heavier than Fe do not come from them. He proposes that they are made by all stars. In the photosphere. Which is a bit lame, as we would detect them. And don't.

We certainly detect Iron and Nickel in the solar atmosphere inside those discharge channels (Birkeland currents).

They would also produce neutrinos with different energies than that from p-p fusion.

True, but we only observe neutrinos, and most of them are *not* even electron neutrinos in the first place.

So, if he was right, we should see counts of high energy neutrinos that are way out of line with what is predicted.

Source? Where did they "predict" anything other than what we observe?

This is not seen.

Oscillation from electron to muon and tau neutrinos are not seen in a lab experiment either but we can and have created muon and tau neutrinos from ordinary particle collisions, and the sun is one huge particle collider.

Until fairly recently, it was very difficult to detect the low energy neutrinos from p-p fusion, which is the first link in the chain. This is the process that is predicted to produce the highest number of neutrinos, and therefore the vast majority of the energy to power the Sun.

I'm trying to figure out where you think the *high energy* neutrinos come from.

I have already linked to the paper where this detection is made. However, it is paywalled. So, some of ther highlights:





And here (hopefully is Fig. 1 from the paper:

0b81df783044003


As can be seen (if I've posted it correctly) this shows that the vast majority of the neutrino flux is from p-p fusion.

But these are simply *models*, which then have to be matched back to observation by *assuming* oscillation of electron neutrinos to muon and tau forms which has *never* been demonstrated in the lab.

Thornill/Scott don't require oscillation to begin with.

It also shows that fusion of different elements have different energies. This is how we know that heavy element fusion in the photosphere, as proposed by Scott and Thornhill, is not the reason for neutrino production.

You're essentially trying to get me to *assume* that electron neutrinos oscillate into muon and tau, *and* get me to assume that there's no other way to produce the same spread. I don't see any evidence of either assumption, although the neutrino oscillation idea isn't repugnant to me personally. It *may* happen, but I'm not convinced it *must* happen.

It is not the only reason, as mentioned previously. The lack of gamma rays is a killer,

No, it's not as that image I cited demonstrates. Absorption of higher energy wavelengths in the solar atmosphere is *observed*. You erroneously suggested the process happens *above* the photosphere, whereas the quote you provided by Thornhill clearly says *in* the photosphere. There's a big difference between the word above and in. If something is *in* the box, it's not "above" the box.

as is the temperature and density of the photosphere,

No. The temperature is the same in their model because like your model the gamma rays are *absorbed* before they get "above" the photosphere so they end up heating up the photosphere.

which is not conducive to fusion.

Fusion is occurring in the plasma pinch "Birkeland currents"/magnetic ropes you see in that image I posted. It's occurring in the lit up 'solar moss" areas, not the whole photosphere. The temperature of the loops is sometimes greater than 10 million degrees, even if the photosphere as a whole is much cooler.

As also mentioned previously, their models suck, as can be seen by anybody even minimally educated in the relevant areas.

Well, I ultimately agree with you that they do actually "suck", which is why I personally prefer Birkeland's cathode model, but not for any of the reasons that you've cited so far. Pretty much everything you've said to this point in our conversation is simply *false* in terms of what they actually 'predict'. They both predict that the fusion occurs *in* the photosphere, not "above" the photosphere which would *heat up* the photosphere as the photosphere absorbs the gamma rays and high energy wavelengths from the million degree discharge loops.

Let's be clear. I'm not emotionally or personally attached to their solar model. I don't even prefer their solar model to begin with, I prefer a different model altogether, but you don't even begin to understand their solar model properly. Where are you getting these erroneous ideas from anyway? They simply are not true. As your quote from Thornhill states, both Scott and Thornhill expect that the fusion process takes place *in* the photosphere, not above it, so most of your other assumptions are simply false.

There are in fact some valid scientific reasons to reject their model but none of the reasons you've suggested are valid, save perhaps the variation with sunspot activity that you mentioned before. All the rest of your criticisms are simply invalid to begin with because you're trying to take the fusion process *out* of the photosphere, when it fact it occurs *in* the photosphere in their model.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ianw16

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
240
183
62
bournemouth
✟9,234.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Source? Where did they "predict" anything other than what we observe?

Thornhill:
The electric Sun model expects far more complex heavy element synthesis to take place in the natural particle accelerators in the photospheric lightning discharges.

What 'lightning discharges', by the way?

Solar neutrino puzzle is solved? – holoscience.com | The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE®

Scott:
In the Electric Sun model there is no energy produced in the core - radiant energy is released at the surface by electric arc discharge. So, there is no 'missing neutrino' problem for the electric Sun model. The electron-nuetrinos that are observed are probably produced by fusion taking place at the solar surface that produces heavy elements (other than hydrogen and helium).

Comments on the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Report

Trivially wrong. As shown in the Borexino paper. The vast majority of the energy to power the Sun is from p-p fusion, as described: p + p ---> 2H + positron + electron neutrino.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
By the way, this was the paper that I was referencing above:
Neutrinos from the primary proton–proton fusion process in the Sun
Borexino Collaboration
Neutrinos from the primary proton–proton fusion process in the Sun

As mentioned, the paper is paywalled. I'm not sure if one can pm on this board, but should anyone want a copy, let me know.
Brian Koberlein gives a nice summary, here:
Common Core - One Universe at a Time

I'll have to find and read the paper, but....

Even if the paper in question supports a core fusion model, it does *not* preclude other methods of producing the same neutrinos. It's one thing to claim 'This specific paper supports my claim", and it's another thing entirely to say "This paper falsifies any other claim". The later statement is *way* beyond the scope of the paper that you cited. In other words, it doesn't make the second statement in that paper.
 
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

Michael

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

Thornhill:


What 'lightning discharges', by the way?

Those million degree plasma pinches that you see in this image.

mossyohkoh.jpg

Solar neutrino puzzle is solved? – holoscience.com | The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE®

Scott:


Comments on the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Report

Trivially wrong. As shown in the Borexino paper. The vast majority of the energy to power the Sun is from p-p fusion, as described: p + p ---> 2H + positron + electron neutrino.

Again, you're erroneously trying to use a paper that justifiably supports your own claim, but it does *not* falsify any other possible explanation for those same observations. Falsifying Scott's model is not even within the scope of the paper in question! You can reasonably claim that the paper in question supports your model, but that paper does not make any claims with respect to Scott's model.
 
Upvote 0

ianw16

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
240
183
62
bournemouth
✟9,234.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
You can reasonably claim that the paper in question supports your model, but that paper does not make any claims with respect to Scott's model.

Yes, it does! Scott and Thornhill (and I bolded this, for the hard of understanding) say that the fusion is from heavy element synthesis. And what do we detect? A tiny amount from heavy element synthesis. The vast majority is from p-p fusion. That is hydrogen. What does Scott say?
fusion taking place at the solar surface that produces heavy elements (other than hydrogen and helium).

Which part of that are you having trouble understanding? Do you know what pressures and temperatures are required for such fusion to occur? It would be blindingly obvious. Especially as Scott has it happening 'at the solar surface'. Or is that his way of saying, 'way below the surface, at such a depth that the gamma rays cannot be detected.'?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

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

Where *exactly* in the paper, including page number and paragraph does that paper specifically mention Scott or Thornhill or their model?

Scott and Thornhill (and I bolded this, for the hard of understanding) say that the fusion is from heavy element synthesis. And what do we detect? A tiny amount from heavy element synthesis.
The vast majority is from p-p fusion. That is hydrogen.

And that is exactly what I would expect in a paper that was specifically intended to support the standard model.

What does Scott say?

Which part of that are you having trouble understanding?


I'm having trouble understanding where you got a similar graph from *their* model as to where they believe that the various neutrinos come from. I've certainly never seen one.

Do you know what pressures and temperatures are required for such fusion to occur? It would be blindingly obvious.

Those million degree coronal loops all over the sun are blinding obvious too.

Especially as Scott has it happening 'at the solar surface'.

mossyohkoh.jpg


I would say the the blue colored solar moss activity looks to be pretty close to the surface alright. We don't see any yellow from that region however so it's evidently deep enough to absorb the higher energy wavelengths quite effectively.

Or is that his way of saying, 'way below the surface, at such a depth that the gamma rays cannot be detected.'?

Do you see any yellow at the bases of those loops? If not, why not?

As I look along the right hand side of those loops, there looks to be quite a bit of depth visible in blue that doesn't light up in yellow. Why aren't the whole loops lit up in yellow too?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

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

The *internally* powered Birkeland cathode solar model that's is described on my website was specifically designed and put together based on what I observed in satellite images and from heliosciesmology data. From those sources, including that blue/yellow Trace/Yohkoh composite image and including heliosiesmology information related to sunspot mass flows by Alexander Kosovichev, I "predicted"/estimated that the electrode surface was located about 4800KM below the surface of the photosphere. That website was also based on the laboratory work of Kristian Birkeland and I had read his work.

I put together that whole website and those figures *before* I ever even heard of EU/PC theory, or Juergen's anode solar model, or Dr. Scott or Wal Thornhill. In fact, it was only *after* I started debating that model on the internet that I even hear about Scott, Juergens or EU/PC theory.

When I first started debating that solar model at Bad Astronomy (now Cosmoquest), I fully expected to 'take a lot of flack' over the concept of a rigid (not necessarily solid) cathode surface under the photosphere, but I didn't even realize at the time that "electricity" was virtually a forbidden word in astronomy. Much to my surprise however, the most 'controversial' aspect of that model, or at least the concept that attracted the most vehement attacks, was the electrical aspects of that model. Frankly at the time I didn't even think the electrical part of the model was all that "controversial". How *else* would anyone explain million degree coronal loops lasting days and weeks on end? That was my naive thought at the time at least.

Much to my complete surprise, I took a lot of criticism over the electrical parts of my model, and I immediately got categorized at Bad Astronomy as being a part of the EU/PC community. I'd never even heard of them before then, or EU/PC theory until that point. That was about 2005.

I finally got curious about the EU/PC *cosmology* model (rather than my solar model) after those Bad Astronomy debates so I went over to Thunderbolts and I asked for some references to explain the EU/PC cosmology model to me. Folks there suggested "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven, and the papers and a book by Anthony Peratt which I ordered and read.

I was *amazed*. I'd never even known that Hannes Alfven had written a book on cosmology theory, or even heard of Anthony Peratt until they suggested his work to me.

They also suggested videos and eventually Scott's book (not sure it was out just yet), and Thornhill's book, which I also read. I like Scott's book as an introduction to the basic concept, but it seemed to be a bit "math light" compared to Alfven and Peratt's books. I also noticed that Scott was using a completely different solar model than Alfven/Peratt, and I was using a different model entirely.

I also got suggestions to read Lerners book and I read that book too. Great book by the way.

I frankly didn't even hear of Velikovsky until *much* later and I frankly wasn't even interested in that work.

To the best of my knowledge, only Alfven and Peratt have described a *cosmology* model that includes any math, or any actual computer modeling. I'm not sure where you get the idea that there is any cosmology model by Velikovky or by Thornhill. Thornhill at least touched on cosmology topics, but typically *without* any mathematical detail like Alfven and Peratt, and most of that was based on Alfven's models.

Hands *down*, Peratt's book "Physics of the plasma universe" is *by far* the most mathematically comprehensive book/presentation on the topic of EU/PC theory. It's not even close. Even Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma is "simplified' by comparison. If you ever actually do want to study the *cosmology* aspects of EU/PC theory, I strongly recommend Peratt's book. Everything you really need to know about the cosmology aspects of EU/PC theory, including the math, is contained in that book. Great book.

I also realized that I was a bit 'out on a limb' with respect to my preference of Birkeland's cathode solar model after reading Aflven's book and Peratt's book. They both preferred the standard solar model. I had to do some serious soul searching over that issue in fact. The bottom line however is that I simply could not even begin to explain satellite images and the heliosiesemology data based on the standard solar model. It simply doesn't correspond correctly with what I can see in satellite imagery IMO.

Scott's/Juergen's anode solar model was only ever "mildly interesting" to me because Birkeland had also experimented with an anode configuration, and he described the differences in his experiments between those two configurations and he preferred a cathode sun. To my knowledge he's the only human being in human history to perform such a wide range of experiments of that nature, including the work that's been done by SAFIRE. SAFIRE has only thus far played around with the anode configuration and they've done no experiments with a cathode model yet.

While I *cannot* jive solar satellite imagery with the standard solar model, I can actually do so with an anode model simply by switching the polarity of the electrode surface. It is still not optimal for a variety of reasons I won't mention unless you mention them first, but the depth of the electrode would be exactly the same as my model, and the bulk of the electrical discharge activity would never reach the surface of the photosphere. I'd expect the gamma rays to be pretty much absorbed by the photosphere as per that previous image I've cited.

Suffice to say that even though I don't prefer an anode solar model, it is reasonably consistent with the satellite imagery and the heliosciesmology data.
 
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

ianw16

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
240
183
62
bournemouth
✟9,234.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Where *exactly* in the paper, including page number and paragraph does that paper specifically mention Scott or Thornhill or their model?

What an idiotic comment. They will have never heard of them or their stupid models. The fact that they detect the predicted amount of neutrinos from p-p fusion, and that it isn't from heavy element fusion falsifies the claims of those woo merchants.

And that is exactly what I would expect in a paper that was specifically intended to support the standard model.

Typical crank response. They detected what they detected. I guess it's all a conspiracy to keep down idiotic, scientifically impossible woo as proposed by EU cultists? That these scientists will almost certainly never have heard of. Or their silly models. Yep, it's all a huge conspiracy. Pathetic.

I'm having trouble understanding where you got a similar graph from *their* model as to where they believe that the various neutrinos come from. I've certainly never seen one.

And you never will. It's all word salad. However let me repeat this for the hard of understanding: they predict HEAVY ELEMENT fusion at the surface. Is that what is seen? No, it isn't and their model is therefore dead in the water, isn't it?

Those million degree coronal loops all over the sun are blinding obvious too.

Hahaha. Nowhere near hot nor dense enough.

It's obvious that this is a pointless exercise, as you appear to be intellectually incapable of understanding the subject matter.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.