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

[ianw16]

As best as I can tell from satellites and heliosciesmology, the electrode surface is located about 4800Km under the surface of the photosphere and only a *tiny fraction* of the coronal loops (plasma pinches) ever rise above the surface of the photosphere.

There is no electrode surface. You made that up. Independent verification please.

 

[ianw16]

I wouldn't expect any of that to be "seen" from Thornhill's model in the first place.

In which case, you are as clueless as him. And what model? Where is it?

 

[Michael]

Another irrelevance.

False, as the corona around both the anode and cathode models clearly demonstrate *in the lab*.

How is plugging a metallic sphere into the mains telling us anything about the Sun?

Did you read that link on Birkeland's solar model and all the *verified* predictions he made with it yet?

An introduction to the Birkeland cathode solar model | Cnps

It tells us how solar wind works, how aurora's work, why the sun emits cathode rays, polar jets, coronal loops, etc, etc, etc.

Where is the solar system equivalent of that mains power?

The sun is a net *generator* of electrical current in two of the three models, and even in the third model some of the energy is produced locally. Cosmic rays are the solar system equivalent of the small amount of energy Birkeland's model requires.

Does this experiment produce a quasi-neutral solar wind?

Yes, and solar "strahl" and electron beams, and Birkeland's model *correctly predicted* cosmic rays.

Does it produce an equivalent of the IMF?

Yep, in the lab too!

Frankly, what is the point of it?

They explain all the features that the standard solar model does not explain, starting with the heat source of the solar corona and why we don't need fast convection to explain it.

It'll prove nothing, and, if it's published at all, will be in some crank or irrelevant journal, where it will be rightly ignored.

Only for as long as folks like you continue to make blatantly false allegations against EU/PC theory, and eventually LCDM is doomed to be replaced by real empirical solutions to real observations in space eventually anyway.

You've dodged my question about whether or not you've read Alfven's book or Birkeland's book yet. Yes? No?

 

[Michael]

There is no electrode surface. You made that up. Independent verification please.

 

[ianw16]

I don't know how much current to expect in Thornhills'/Scott's model because I've never seen them try to estimate it, but I would tend to agree that cosmic rays have the opposite charge of what they tend to predict and electrons are flowing *from* the sun, not really toward it very much. That is probably your one and only really valid (and strong) criticism of all possible anode solar model configurations.

Nope. There are many. As outlined here and elsewhere. Their looney tunes models don't get over the starting line on many counts. And electron and ions are flowing from the Sun. And carrying a magnetic field with them. What would this do to any incoming current, be it composed of ions or electrons? It was a dumb idea, and Juergen's should have stopped once he realised this. Assuming he ever figured it out. Which is doubtful. You'd think Scott might have realised, though. What was his degree in?

 

[ianw16]

The sun is a net *generator* of electrical current in two of the three models, and even in the third model some of the energy is produced locally. Cosmic rays are the solar system equivalent of the small amount of energy Birkeland's model requires.

Cosmic rays demonstrate conclusively that there *is* current flowing into the sun, so that claim is provably false.

Not that I'm interested in already falsified, 100 year old musings, but what are the calculations for this input from cosmic rays? I assume they've been done, yes?

 

[Michael]

And you don't have any lab support. And don't point me to irrelevant metallic spheres plugged into the mains. Nothing like a star.

That just an ignorant statement. Not only does it explain *and produce* aurora, it explains and produces a full sphere hot corona, cathode rays, polar jets, both types of charged particles in solar wind, coronal loops and ever other high energy atmosopheric event observed in solar physics.

Your biases have blinded you to *working models* for crying out loud.

 

[ianw16]

Except the standard solar model does *not* explain the heat source of the corona, and it's two orders of magnitude *broken* when comes to convection. The precious mainstream solar model needs an upgrade.

And is nowhere near needing idiocy like the scientifically impossible nonsense offered up by yourself, Scott or Thornhill. As I've said, the people coming up with this nonsense have impossible models, with zero evidence. Why would anybody adopt such nonsense? They only exist in woo-land.

 

[ianw16]

Your biases have blinded you to *working models* for crying out loud.

You don't have a working model. Show me the solar wind created. Show me the convection. Show me the entrained magnetic field within the solar wind from the metal ball. So, it isn't a working model of anything. It is merely a demonstration of what happens when you put a squillion volts through a metal ball. Yippee! How much did this idiocy cost?

 

[ianw16]

The standard solar model fails too, and there is evidence of electrical features in the hot solar atmosphere.

No, it doesn't. You already agreed that the neutrino flux was predicted long before its confirmation. So we know the Sun is powered by fusion.
Ooooh, electrical features? And you want me to dig through the literature for 'sun; electric'? I think you'll find most of this is already explained, and is certainly no reason to turn to pseudoscience.

 

[ianw16]

I'll finish by acknowledging your point about particle flow problems with all anode models. I do personally think that is a *very serious* problem with all anode solar models as well.

Err, you don't think heavy element fusion in the chromosphere is much of a problem then? And the lack of gamma therefrom? Deary me.

 

[Michael]

Nope. There are many. As outlined here and elsewhere.

Virtually all of your criticisms are simply "made up" because nobody in the EU/PC community ever "predicted" any of that nonsense in the first place. You either just made it up, or parroted it from someone else who made it up.

Their looney tunes models

Do you even realize that Alfven used pretty much a "standard" solar model? Your personal attack nonsense is just sad. LCDM has to be the single most "looney tune" astrology, er "astronomy" model I've ever read and I've read many of them. I think only M-Theory is more "looney tune" than LCDM.

don't get over the starting line on many counts.

That's funny considering that the standard solar model doesn't even produce a working corona in a lab.

And electron and ions are flowing from the Sun.

Psst: That's *exactly* what Birkeland predicted and demonstrated in his lab experiments.

And carrying a magnetic field with them.

Also recreated in the lab by Birkeland.

What would this do to any incoming current, be it composed of ions or electrons?

Cosmic rays provide the incoming current in Birkeland's model and Birkeland predicted exactly what we observe in terms of *both* types of particles coming from the sun, which just shows that you've never taken the time to study his work. Alfven also explained that flow pattern in his model as well.

Juergens admittedly predicted a different flow pattern than either of the other two EU/PC models.

It was a dumb idea, and Juergen's should have stopped once he realised this. Assuming he ever figured it out. Which is doubtful. You'd think Scott might have realised, though. What was his degree in?

What makes you think that Juergen's really knew how the particles flowed around the whole sun during his lifetime? Few if any satellites have even gone over the poles of the sun to measure anything. Who cares what his degree was in? That just sounds like more personal attack nonsense especially since all those degrees in astrophysics have led to a cosmology model that is 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance, and 5 percent "pseudoscience" according to the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory.

 

[Michael]

No, it doesn't.

Oh yes it does!

Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected

The standard model has been falsified by observation and it's been broken for more than five years now.

You already agreed that the neutrino flux was predicted long before its confirmation. So we know the Sun is powered by fusion.

And *two out of three* predicted that, and the other one predicts fusion too!

Ooooh, electrical features? And you want me to dig through the literature for 'sun; electric'? I think you'll find most of this is already explained, and is certainly no reason to turn to pseudoscience.

How funny since "magnetic reconnection" *is* pseudoscience according to the Nobel prize winning author of MHD theory. Meanwhile a century old solar model not only 'explains', it *simulates* a *working* corona using real empirical physics that works in the lab.

 

[ianw16]

Virtually all of your criticisms are simply "made up" because nobody in the EU/PC community ever "predicted" any of that nonsense in the first place. You either just made it up, or parroted it from someone else who made it up.

Short memory again, huh? No current. No fusion in the chromosphere. No gamma rays therefrom. No neutrino signal therefrom. Cannot explain the solar wind........need I go on? Why do you think this rubbish only exists in woo-woo land?

 

[Michael]

Err, you don't think heavy element fusion in the chromosphere is much of a problem then? And the lack of gamma therefrom? Deary me.

No, I think heavy element fusion in the *photosphere* as Thornhill stated in the very quote you listed and it doesn't predict gamma rays to start with. You're just making this up as you go.

Even *if* Scott originally predicted something *different* from Thornhill, you posted Thornhill's quote on this topic, and you continue to misrepresent the fact that the fusion process doesn't have to be above the surface of the photosphere. Furthermore you keep running from the *observations* that "debunks" you claim and shows that higher energy wavelengths are absorbed by the lower solar atmosphere.

Explain that image for us!

 

[ianw16]

That's funny considering that the standard solar model doesn't even produce a working corona in a lab.

Neither have you. Just heated up a metal ball. The Sun isn't metal, and has no incoming current, so irrelevant. It proves nothing, as I think you'll find when this turns up in 'Concrete Today', or some crank journal or other.

 

[ianw16]

Psst: That's *exactly* what Birkeland predicted and demonstrated in his lab experiments.

Psst. Liar. Show me where he saw both electrons and ions leaving his metal ball.

 

[Michael]

Short memory again, huh? No current.

Solar "strahl" is current. Electron beams from the sun *are* current. Cosmic rays *are* a form of current.

No fusion in the chromosphere.

Thornhill *clearly* predicted fusion in the *photosphere* regardless of how much you'd like to ignore and misrepresent the very quote that *you* selected from his work.

No gamma rays therefrom.

And none expected from the the photosphere either. For that matter you can't even be sure that the chromosphere wouldn't absorb gamma rays too!

No neutrino signal therefrom.

False. We see neutrinos for the sun, and they all predict them. Two of the three models predict *exactly the same thing* as the standard model so your own reference supports the majority of EU/PC models too!

Cannot explain the solar wind........

False. Birkeland not only "explained" it, he *simulated it in the lab*. Alfven's EU/PC model is based on the standard model so if you give the standard model credit for solar wind "explanations", you sure as hell cannot claim Alfven's model doesn't predict solar wind! You're just demonstrating your own ignorance of the *multiple* EU/PC solar models that have been discussed.

need I go on?

Making false claims? Definitely not.

Why do you think this rubbish only exists in woo-woo land?

It doesn't as SAFIRE and Birekland's working demonstrate. The exist *and work* in the lab too.

LCMD is 95 percent 'woo' and 5 percent pseudoscience and *none* of it works in the lab. It's got exactly as much lab support as *astrology*.

 

[Michael]

Neither have you. Just heated up a metal ball.

No, *Birkeland* heated up the *atmosphere* around the cathode, and SAFIRE experiments also demonstrate that the electrode is cooler than the plasma around the electrode. A hot solar corona pops right out of all EU/PC models whereas the standard model *still* can't explain it a century after Birkeland not only explained it, but also simulated it in his lab.

The Sun isn't metal,

It doesn't have to be. There is however published literature to suggest that it is mostly made of heavier elements.

The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass

and has no incoming current,

Demonstrably false. Cosmic rays are a form of current.

so irrelevant. It proves nothing,

Your *false* beliefs are irrelevant and they prove nothing other than your own ignorance of this topic and the *three different* EU/PC solar models.

as I think you'll find when this turns up in 'Concrete Today', or some crank journal or other.

More ridiculous nonsense. Alfven published over 100 papers, many of them in 'mainstream' Journals. You really should stop parroting the nonsense you apparently read on the internet and read some of Alfven's work and Birkeland's work for yourself. You obviously haven't read any of it.

 

[ianw16]

How funny since "magnetic reconnection" *is* pseudoscience according to the Nobel prize winning author of MHD theory.

Nope, he said it was possible. He didn't like some people applying it in ideal MHD. They don't. It can't occur in ideal MHD. As has been long known. Somebody else said this:

RECONNECTION
A special kind of violation of the frozen field condition is the process of reconnection. In the classic review article by Vasyliunas (1975) reconnection was defined as “the process whereby plasma flows across a surface separating regions containing topologically different magnetic field lines” (cf. also Priest and Forbes, 2000). But change of connectivity between plasma elements is possible without a separator. Independently of topology, two elements of plasma that are at one instant of time on a common magnetic field line can be on different magnetic field line at another instant, if the condition given above is satisfied somewhere between the plasma elements. This more general definition of reconnection was proposed by Schindler et al. (1988) and Hesse and Schindler (1988) and further elaborated by Birn et al. (1997), but the term reconnection is commonly used for reconnection at a separatrix.
Reconnection is considered to be one of the most important phenomena in cosmic plasma, as a means of topology change and energy release. In the Earth’s magnetosphere, reconnection takes place both at the magnetopause and in the tail current sheet. In addition, local reconnection of limited strands of magnetic flux, so-called flux transfer events, are also common (Le et al. 2008). The reconnection events in the geomagnetic tail that are associated with magnetospheric substorms have many similarities to the fast energy release that takes place in solar flares (Lin et al., 2008). In the magnetosphere, the phenomenon can be studied empirically in great detail by means of in situ
measurements (Paschmann, 2008). The value of this for understanding solar flares and other kinds of energy release in cosmic plasmas can hardly be exaggerated. Reconnection is an extremely complicated phenomenon, and this makes it even more important to have actual measurements to guide theoretical work. One reason for complexity is that reconnection involves coupling between widely different spatial scales, from system-scale structure through ion scales and down to electron scales. Therefore, multipoint measurements are essential. Multipoint measurements are at present being made with the still operational Cluster satellites and the more recent five satellites of the THEMIS project. For example, Cluster observations showed that the extent of the electron disffusion region can far exceed what is expected from simulations (Phan et al., 2007) Substantial further progress can be expected from another four-spacecraft mission, Magnetospheric Multiprobes, which has recently been approved by NASA. Due to the widely different spatial scales involved in reconnection, a major advance would be simultaneous multipoint measurements on each of the three spatial scales. Such a project, called Cross Scale, is part of ESA’s long term plan Cosmic Vision. It involves 10 or 12 satellites forming tetrahedrons on each scale.
For the Cross scale mission, reconnection studies is only one of its purposes. It will, if it realized, be a formidable tool for studying many other space plasma phenomena. This is in particular true for two phenomena, namely collisionless shocks and turbulence. Both of these are of fundamental importance in cosmic plasmas and both are prominent in the magnetosphere and in accessible regions of the solar wind.

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:484042/FULLTEXT01.pdf

I would suggest reading that, and the references therein. Who cares about stuff Alfven said 30 years ago? Things have moved on without him.