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

[SelfSim]

'The Journal of Fusion Energy' appears to have an Impact Factor of merely 0.858.

How much did ya pay 'em to publish yer paper then Michael?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is not the journal one would choose to make such a claim. The peer reviewers are likely not astrophysicists, who would understand the processes described, and the significance of such a claim.

Yes, it's a minor journal concerned with development of thermonuclear fusion as a useful power source, and a forum for discussion of broader policy and planning issues. Not astrophysics by any stretch.

 

[ianw16]

This paper?

On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars

Actually, it was this one:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0512/0512633.pdf

Your point is still valid, however.

 

[Michael]

Then your memory is playing tricks on you.

Evidently so. My apologies to Tim. I met quite a few good folks at ISF, but none that I respect more than Tim. That thread covered a lot of territory and a lot of topics in short order so I didn't recall all the details of that that conversation with Tim. I recalled that he wasn't happy with a perceived lack of specific CNO wavelengths, but I also cited material for him that shows that Rhessi picks a wide gamma ray spectrum which include all the CNO specific wavelengths.

2005ESASP.600E.108A Page 108.1

I believe that was one of the documents I referenced. Rhessi sees a full range of MeV wavelengths during solar flare activity, including all those wavelengths which are specifically associated with CNO fusion.

 

[Michael]

This paper?

On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars

No, it was this one:

[astro-ph/0512633] Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle

 

[ianw16]

Evidently so. My apologies to Tim. I met quite a few good folks at ISF, but none that I respect more than Tim. That thread covered a lot of territory and a lot of topics in short order so I didn't recall all the details of that that conversation with Tim. I recalled that he wasn't happy with a perceived lack of specific CNO wavelengths, but I also cited material for him that shows that Rhessi picks a wide gamma ray spectrum which include all the CNO specific wavelengths.

2005ESASP.600E.108A Page 108.1

I believe that was one of the documents I referenced. Rhessi sees a full range of MeV wavelengths during solar flare activity, including all those wavelengths which are specifically associated with CNO fusion.

And I believe that paper was dealt with by a number of people on ISF, and shown not to be what you think it is. For a kick off, there is no nitrogen detected from what I can see in fig. 5. There is a lower case 'n', but that is neutron capture at 2.2 MeV. And there is no stand out emission at the frequencies we'd expect to see it for fusion. There is nothing in that paper to indicate CNO fusion. I think the authors might have been all over that, had it been the case.

 

[Michael]

And I believe that paper was dealt with by a number of people on ISF, and shown not to be what you think it is.

It wasn't "dealt" with so much as handwaved at, and people just seemed to *assume* that they could read my mind, or they simply misunderstood what I said.

For a kick off, there is no nitrogen detected from what I can see in fig. 5.

It would be more correct to say that nobody took the time to point out any specific areas of the spectrum that are specifically associated with Nitrogen like they did with Carbon and Oxygen, but all of the expected CNO Nitrogen lines are covered in that image.

There is a lower case 'n', but that is neutron capture at 2.2 MeV.

That's true, but the graph contains the full range of CNO wavelengths, including those which are specifically associated with Nitrogen (1.73-7.54Mev) and SERTS data includes specific Nitrogen ion lines even if that particular graph doesn't point them out like it does with Carbon and Oxygen.

And there is no stand out emission at the frequencies we'd expect to see it for fusion.

I wouldn't necessarily expect to see that in such a graph in the first place because it's not related to a specific flare, it's indicative of the the gamma ray spectrum from a *range* of flares.

There is nothing in that paper to indicate CNO fusion.

There is evidence that all the wavelengths which are related to CNO fusion are observed by Rhessi in flare activity. It is open to interpretation like most uncontrolled observations however.

I think the authors might have been all over that, had it been the case.

CNO fusion wasn't the topic of that paper in the first place, so I doubt that was their intent, but it does show that the whole spectrum of CNO emissions are observed by Rhessi in solar flares.

Like all uncontrolled observations, interpretations of the data can be subjective, but my only intent was to demonstrate that Rhessi sees far more gamma rays than just 2.2 Mev and more than just positron/electron annihilation wavelengths. It also observes higher and lower energy wavelengths, including those associated with CNO fusion.

 

[ianw16]

There is evidence that all the wavelengths which are related to CNO fusion are observed by Rhessi in flare activity. It is open to interpretation like most uncontrolled observations however.

And as far as I can see, that interpretation is wrong, and nobody else has made it, and it wasn't published in a paper where its faults were likely to be picked up. Here is a similar observation, where the authors do interpret the data, and publish it in ApJ:

RHESSI e+ - e- ANNIHILATION RADIATION OBSERVATIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR CONDITIONS IN THE FLARING SOLAR CHROMOSPHERE
Share, G. H. et al.
http://gaia.astro.umd.edu/~share/publications/share_511_2004.pdf

Interestingly, they do seem to observe some flare related fusion:

Another significant component in the spectrum is the 7Li - 7Be line complex formed in the fusion of flare-accelerated alpha particles with ambient 4He (Kozlovsky & Ramaty 1974; Share et al. 2003b).

And another, where they see C and O de-excitation, among other things, but no fusion:

Solar Neutron Events of October-November 2003
Watanabe, K. et al
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0509527.pdf

 

[Michael]

And as far as I can see, that interpretation is wrong,

Everyone has opinions. Some of them are published and some are not.

and nobody else has made it,

We were actually trying to be first, though not necessarily last.

and it wasn't published in a paper where its faults were likely to be picked up.

That's a bit presumptuous actually.

Here is a similar observation, where the authors do interpret the data, and publish it in ApJ:

RHESSI e+ - e- ANNIHILATION RADIATION OBSERVATIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR CONDITIONS IN THE FLARING SOLAR CHROMOSPHERE
Share, G. H. et al.
http://gaia.astro.umd.edu/~share/publications/share_511_2004.pdf

Interestingly, they do seem to observe some flare related fusion:

Technically any fusion observed near the surface of the photosphere supports Scott's model (including neutrino variation over time), although the bulk of it would need to occur under the surface.

And another, where they see C and O de-excitation, among other things, but no fusion:

Solar Neutron Events of October-November 2003
Watanabe, K. et al
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0509527.pdf

Thanks for the links. I'll try to read both papers today or this weekend.

 

[ianw16]

Technically any fusion observed near the surface of the photosphere supports Scott's model (including neutrino variation over time), although the bulk of it would need to occur under the surface.

No, it doesn't. His model is already dead. Gamma rays kill it. So does the neutrino flux and energy spectrum. So does the lack of a current. So does the solar wind, etc, etc. There is zero evidence, nor need, for Scott's/ Juergen's/ Thornhill's, or any other silly EU models.
On the other hand, the evidence matches extremely well with the SSM. Zero evidence, zero need for anything else. Ever hear of the principle of parsimony?

 

[Michael]

No, it doesn't. His model is already dead. Gamma rays kill it.

Gah! No, gamma rays do not kill it. Thornhill and Scott specifically put the main fusion process inside a double layer *in* the photosphere, not above it. You even quoted Thornhill yourself! I've also shown you observational satellite evidence to demonstrate that higher energy wavelengths are *absorbed* by the solar atmosphere! We don't see yellow extending into or in the solar moss region of this image, just in the corona.

If you were correct, we'd see yellow all the way down into the solar moss region, and all along that layer. We don't.

So does the neutrino flux and energy spectrum.

That's another point you've just *assumed* based on the pressure and temperature estimates of a *standard core model*. That's not a falsification mechanism of any other possible model, it's only a useful validation method of the standard model at best case.

So does the lack of a current.

Ok, I'll bite. How do you know how much current is necessary to make up the difference between the amount of fusion happening locally, and whatever you seem to assume you need to produce enough energy to make up the difference?

I've never seen Scott or Thornhill make any numeric predictions along those lines, but hey, you've turned me on to some useful links already in this thread, so maybe I missed it?

So does the solar wind, etc, etc.

Hmm. I'm going to give you some credit for being on the right track for a change. Care to elaborate? I'll admit that issue is the deciding factor for me at it relates to my preference of solar models as well, but I have specific observations in mind.

There is zero evidence, nor need, for Scott's/ Juergen's/ Thornhill's, or any other silly EU models.

The sustained, hot, full sphere corona supports both EU models, and the mainstream has no explanation for it, certainly nothing that works in the lab. Keep in mind that the supposed power source of strong magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere in the standard model presumably originate with "fast' convection, and SDO measurements blew that claim away.

On the other hand, the evidence matches extremely well with the SSM.

Definitely not the corona or the convection evidence. They don't match up well at all.

Zero evidence, zero need for anything else. Ever hear of the principle of parsimony?

Pfft. It that concept was actually used in astronomy, Birkeland's internally powered solar model wins hands down, and ordinary inelastic scattering easily replaces the need for three of the four metaphysical concepts of LCMD, including space expansion, dark energy and inflation.

Parsimony has never been used in astronomy I'm afraid, but I too wish that were the case.

I will say this, you are on the right track with respect to solar wind, and that is also the reason that I prefer a cathode model over an anode model. What about the solar wind do you believe is in conflict with an anode model?

 

[ianw16]

Gah! No, gamma rays do not kill it. Thornhill and Scott specifically put the main fusion process inside a double layer *in* the photosphere, not above it.

Yes they do. As I've already pointed out. How the hell are you getting a DL inside the photosphere? What is causing it? What is sustaining it in such a turbulent environment? It's idiocy. And I'll quote Scott again:

Modern nomenclature calls it a 'double layer' (DL). It is a well known phenomenon in plasma discharges. Because of the DL positioned between points c and e,.......

So, here is the diagram to show where points c and e are:

And here is Scott telling us what happens in this imaginary DL:

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 Electric Sun

So, where in all of that is he plunging this non-existent DL deep below the photosphere, to hide the gamma ray emission that would surely sterilise the planet? I'll tell you what - he never even considered it, because he is an EE with little to no knowledge of astrophysics. Just another crank poseur.
So show me where this paradigm changing, Nobel worthy description has been made plain by these jokers. You know, a few diagrams, descriptions, equations, etc. The sort of thing real scientists do. I see nothing other than word salad. They always leave themselves as much wiggle room as possible.

 

[SelfSim]

... So, where in all of that is he plunging this non-existent DL deep below the photosphere, ...

According to his diagram, (the graphical parts of which are based on the standard physical math descriptions), the E-field is flat between points b and c and the charge density is neutral, which supposedly also corresponds to Scott's photosphere.

DL??? Pffft!!

Its all word-salad and crayon drawings scrawled on the walls of his institution provided cell!

 

[ianw16]

From MM:

I will say this, you are on the right track with respect to solar wind, and that is also the reason that I prefer a cathode model over an anode model. What about the solar wind do you believe is in conflict with an anode model?

Errmmm, the person who proposed it hasn't got a clue? Read on:

Scott, the solar wind, and his strange allergy to electrons.

From: The Electric Sun

The Electric Sun Hypothesis

The Basics

Positive ions leave the Sun and electrons enter the Sun.

The Solar Wind

Positive ions stream outward from the Sun's surface and accelerate away, through the corona, for as far as we have been able to measure. It is thought that these particles eventually make up a portion of the cosmic ray flux that permeates the cosmos.

Acceleration of the Solar 'Wind'

The energy plot (to the right of point e) actually trails off, with slightly negative slope, toward the negative voltage of deep space (our arm of the Milky Way galaxy). A relatively low density plasma can support a weak E-field. Consistent with this, a low amplitude (positive) E-field extends indefinitely to the right from point e. This is the effect of the Sun being at a higher voltage level than is distant space just beyond the heliopause. The outward force on positive ions due to this E-field causes the observed acceleration of + ions in the solar wind.

Yep, nice one Don. Now, what are you doing with the equally abundant electrons heading on out at the same speed and in the same direction as the ions? Well, there is a 'paper' on this, so we may learn more about these electrons:

From: http://electric-cosmos.org/SolarWind.pdf

A Note on the Acceleration of the Solar Wind

The solar wind (SW) has several enigmatic properties among which is the unexplained high maximum velocity of the fast SW (~ 800 km/s).Additionally, after leaving the Sun, this stream of charged particles accelerates – increases its velocity. Previously proposed mechanisms have not fully explained how this increasing velocity can occur nor how it can attain its high final value.

OK, this sounds like we're getting somewhere! So, what happens? We scroll down to section 6, and..........

When seeking an effective mechanism for accelerating a charged particle such as a proton or other positively charged ion, an obvious idea would be to investigate the effects of the presence of an electric field.

Ohhh, noo! We already know that an electric field will accelerate ions and electrons - in opposite directions! So where are the poor electrons going? Surely we'll get to this further down ............................................................................................................aaaah, finally:

It is important to note that the required charge density as shown in figure 6 is everywhere greater than zero. Thus, only positive charges (+ions) are involved in the acceleration mechanism. No participation of electrons in the required charge distribution is indicated.

Not again! The electrons have been left at home! What has he got against electrons? He elucidates further, in section 7:

It is not the purpose of this work to present a description of the Electronic Sun (ES) hypothesis. However, it should be pointed out that the solar wind acceleration mechanism described here is an obvious consequence of that model. The ES hypothesis states that outward bound positive ions and protons (that will become constituents of the solar wind) rise up from the photosphere, accelerate through a plasma double layer (DL) and collide with neutrals, other atoms, and ions in the lower corona. Their radially directed (kinetic energy) velocity is thereby brought almost to a standstill.

Yeah, yeah, what about the poor electrons, Don?

Electrons that were associated with these ions drift downward, back out of the lower corona, and serve to maintain the DL as per the Langmuir requirement.

Oh dear. Sent back home again, never to leave, poor devils. He then delivers the coup de grace, with his closing statement, in section 10:

It is surprising that it has taken so long for the electric-field to be considered as a possible causal force in astrophysics.

Wonder why? Because it needed someone to come along who was totally clueless about the constituents of the solar wind, their speed, and direction, to propose such a thing. Well done!
And we're supposed to take this bloke seriously? Nah.

 

[Michael]

According to his diagram, (the graphical parts of which are based on the standard physical math descriptions), the E-field is flat between points b and c and the charge density is neutral, which supposedly also corresponds to Scott's photosphere.

DL??? Pffft!!

Its all word-salad and crayon drawings scrawled on the walls of his institution provided cell!

Sometimes the utterly ignorant things that come out of your mouth(fingers) are simply astounding. I realize that astronomers, particularly LCDM proponents don't even know what a *working* (one that actually demonstrates your claims) laboratory experiment even looks like, so here's one working experiment of Scott's EU model that that demonstrates that contrary to what you foolishly think, his model produces *multiple* plasma double layers above the surface of the anode. Skip to the 1:25:00 mark to see what a real working model looks like. At about the 1:28:45 mark, you'll see video of *multiple* double layers forming around the anode.

If you'd like, you can also download a PDF that shows images of the concentric double layers that form around the anode.

http://www.safireproject.com/science/ewExternalFiles/SAFIRE-Phase-Three.pdf

Not only does Scott's/Juergen's anode model produce *one* DL, it produces *many* of them! Oy Vey. You folks are so clueless at times, it's just painful to watch.

 

[ianw16]

Not only does Scott's/Juergen's anode model produce *one* DL, it produces *many* of them! Oy Vey. You folks are so clueless at times, it's just painful to watch.

So where have they written this down? I keep asking, and showing you that Scott wants the fusion above the photosphere. Show me.
And, by the way, that experiment has nothing to do with a star. Stars aren't metallic spheres plugged into the mains. Try again.

 

[Michael]

Yes they do. As I've already pointed out. How the hell are you getting a DL inside the photosphere?

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

Ya know.....

In an earlier post you said this:

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.

This is right before you yourself literally posted the answer to your own questions from this link:

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

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.

He very specifically claims that the neutrinos are produced from heavy element nucleosynthesis *in*, not above, not below, not behind, but *in* the photosphere. What do you want, egg in your beer?

I've even shown you visual evidence to demonstrate with this Yohkoh(yellow)/Trace(blue) composite image that higher energy wavelengths are *absorbed* by the solar atmosphere, and they can only be seen when they are emitted from the *corona*. The chromosophere even looks to be absorbing the higher energy wavelengths as far as I can tell!

Come on. There are definitely some problems with his model, don't get me wrong, but you're totally barking up the wrong tree as it relates to gamma rays and the location of fusion in their model.

 

[Michael]

So where have they written this down? I keep asking, and showing you that Scott wants the fusion above the photosphere. Show me.
And, by the way, that experiment has nothing to do with a star. Stars aren't metallic spheres plugged into the mains. Try again.

Ya, in fact they very well could have a rigid, and even a potentially solid mostly metallic layer about 4800Km under the photosphere.

As as Birkeland purest, I'm inclined to go with Birkeland's belief that the sun is *internally* powered by a 'transmutation of elements' (fusion) and it's surface is negatively charged with respect to the positively charged cosmic rays that bombard it.

I don't favor Scott's anode model, but it is actually completely consistent with the satellite and heliosciesmology data.

 

[ianw16]

This is right before you yourself literally posted the answer to your own questions from this link:

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

That is the idiot Thornhill. Where is his model written up? I have showed you multiple times that Scott has got fusion going on above the photosphere. Have they got different models? If so, how can I compare them, because they sure as hell aren't going to be in the scientific literature.

 

[ianw16]

Ya, in fact they very well could have a rigid, and even a potentially solid mostly metallic layer about 4800Km under the photosphere.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh dear. No, there couldn't be. Dear me. This EU rubbish gets more bizarre by the post!