<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> They don't simply program computers to simulate something they can't reproduce in a lab. It comes right from standard Lambda-CDM theory.I only pointed out that it never defined that actual "physics" they claim is unique to "magnetic reconnection" and the "experiment" uses electrons to generate the powerful magnetic fields they use. The fact it's a physical experiment that "claims" to study "magnetic reconnection" does not mean that they have verified it's existence. If they wrote about their experiences in a lab, I would really have no complaint. it's when they point to the sky and claim "magnetic reconnection did it" that I get testy. Show me exactly (physically) how "magnetic reconnection" can be shown to release energy in a unique way (other than electrical and particle reconnection) and then I'll be happy to let anyone point to the sky and claim magnetic reconnection did it. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />This is exactly the kind of crap that is so annoying about Michael. He is great at arguing but falls way short in the science arena. He holds the mainstream at a much higher standard than his own conjectures and moves the goal posts with every new bit of data.</p><p>He says first that fancy models about magnetic reconnection is useless, only empirical data is useful. So of course when he is shown a site that demonstrates magnetic reconnection, he demands the physical process is important and the experimental results don't mean anything! He is indignant that the physics were not on the site. The funny thing of course is the 'physics' are available. </p><p>Now of course Birkelands metal ball experiment is all that was needed to 'prove' EU. Well, that experiment is fine but how can you point to the sky and say electricity did it? Show me the Physics.</p><p>1. What is the voltage and amps needed to cause that heating of the sun?</p><p>2. What is the motive force for the electric field in space?</p><p>3. Why is it not possible to detect the electric field?</p><p>4. Why is the solar wind neutral (about the same number of protons and electrons) if it is being driven by an electric field?</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p>5. Where does the sun get it's energy if not entirely from fusion?</p><p> </p><p>[Edit]</p><p>I clipped this from my post in the other thread as it seems for relavent to this one.</p><p>"The stellar model is pretty solid and quite convincing. Why does it surprise and frustrate you when you walk into an establishment and state you have a better stellar model based on models built around a plasma ball in a lab that required an input of energy to function? Sure, the stellar model isn't complete... what model is? I think the preponderance of evidence that supports the model is more than enough to keep on working with it.<br /><br />I still am curious how you explain the sun's energy not being completely internal?" </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Isn't that a bit hypocritical when you chastize mainstream cosmologists for positing dark energy? </DIV></p><p>Of course not. I didn't create a new force of nature, or anything that cannot be emprically tested in controlled conditions. I can see the effects of the current flow in solar behaviors and planetary behaviors and I can show you Birkeland's work and how he simulated these same behaviors with current flow. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Spheres do unsual things in space due to surface tension and EM effects.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXsvy2tBJlUWhy doesn't that water shell collapse in upon the air bubble? Air is obviously far less dense than the water shell." Not enough gravity to create pressure to overcome the surface tension? I'd be wiling to bet that, given enough time, the gas would escape. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>In an all pervasive EM field scenario, why wouldn't that be true for lighter elements inside a mostly iron and nickel shell? Why couldn't the sun contain a pressurized core of lighter elements? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Well again, I think you're misunderstanding magnetic reconnection. Fusion doesn't just release energy -- it converts matter into energy. Magnetic reconnection, on the other hand, does not create energy. It is merely a mechanism for the transfer of energy from one form to another. A release of *stored* energy, as opposed to the creation of new energy. But I'm getting out of my depth and do not think I can adequately discuss the subject much further. I'm obviously failing to make my ideas understood, which is probably due to my lack of depth on the subject. You at least came out of EE, if I understand correctly. I came out of chemistry before switching over to CS, and while electricity and ionization and things like that are important in chemistry, they're not as important as they are in physics. BTW, I don't deny that the flow of charged particles generate the field lines seen around sunspots and in coronal loops. I don't think mainstream astronomers do either; that's the explanation I've always heard. With the exception of ferromagnetism, you just don't get a magnetic field without a flow of charged particles. <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV></p><p>It is perhaps worth remembering that matter and energy are the same thing -- a lesson from Einstein. If you separate the two then conservation of energy and conservation of energy become conservation of mass plus energy. Magnetic fields and electric fields can be sources of stored energy and can participate in transformation of one form of energy into another. If you have how ionized gasses around then the action of a change in a magnetic field can be to compress the gas thereby raise the temperature. So energy originally stored in the magnet field is converted into kinetic energy (temperature) in the gas.</p><p>You are quite correct, to get a magnetic field you must have flow of charged particles somewhere. Evern ferromagnetism is the result of motion of charged particles -- electrons at the atomic level creating a magnetic dipole followed by allignment of the dipoles so that they don't cancel one another out statistically.</p><p>You are also correct that mainstream astronomers, more properly called astrophysicists in these times, understand that magnetic field arise from current flow. Electrodynamics is part of the education of all physicists, astro or otherwise. Electric and magnetic fields come paired up -- you can't have an electric wave or a magnetic wave you can only have an electromagnetic wave. You can only have an electric field or a magnetic field alone in a purely static, non-time-varying situation, and EVERYTHING varies in time at some level. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I can see the effects of the current flow in solar behaviors and planetary behaviors and I can show you Birkeland's work and how he simulated these same behaviors with current flow. </DIV></p><p>You see current flow as affecting planetary behavior? Please, elaborate. I see absolutely no planetary behavior that can be attributed to current flow. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In an all pervasive EM field scenario, why wouldn't that be true for lighter elements inside a mostly iron and nickel shell? Why couldn't the sun contain a pressurized core of lighter elements? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Pure metaphysics (this really is as opposed to mainstream physics). There are no physics that could allow this sort of thing to occur. There is no experimentation to give any inkling that this is possible. There is nothing, absolutely nothing (reality based or course) that supports this idea. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Well again, I think you're misunderstanding magnetic reconnection. Fusion doesn't just release energy -- it converts matter into energy. Magnetic reconnection, on the other hand, does not create energy. It is merely a mechanism for the transfer of energy from one form to another. </DIV></p><p>Ok, I buy that basic arguement.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A release of *stored* energy, as opposed to the creation of new energy. </DIV></p><p>Stored in what way? Delivered to the point of "magnetic reconnection" in what way? Why is s single cornal loops millions of degrees? The "storage" system at PPL involves storing electrons and they releaseing them. The delivery system involves releasing the electrons in huge quantities. How does light plasma "store and deliver" energy if not via electrical current?</p><p>My impression is there is a basic misconception of the mechanical properties of plasma going on here. Alfven talked about the physics behind these particle (kinetic) reconnections and the motive force behind them. The current inside the Birkeland current not only heats up the plasma, it creates kinetic energy in form of movements of the light plasma. The movement of the particle stream, and the kinetic energy that is created by the 'pinch" effect of the magnetic fields is what drives these energy releases. There is nothing "stored" in magnetic fields in light plasma. </p><p>Calling this process a "magnetic reconnection" event is like calling any sort of electrical discharge in plasma a "magnetic reconnection" event. Unless someone can explain how this isn't a typical "pinch" in plasma, I see no reason to believe it's a unique system of releasing energy or moving it from one form to another. The motive force is still electricity.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But I'm getting out of my depth and do not think I can adequately discuss the subject much further. I'm obviously failing to make my ideas understood, which is probably due to my lack of depth on the subject.</DIV></p><p>But it's not just you Calli, it's all of us. There is not a unique physical energy release mechanism identified as "magnetic reconnection" in plasma physics. Alfven reiled against the very concept of "magnetic reconnection" because he understood that the kinetic energy within the plasma and the currents in the plasma sheets were responsible for this energy release. The *unsupportable claim* of "magnetic reconnection" is that this transfer of energy can occur without a current sheet. PPL's experiment involves huge amounts current flow to pump plasma with a strong magnetic field. At that does is move the plasma around, create charge separate inside the plasma and cause "electrical reconnection" and "particle reconnection" inside the plasma. What's unique then about "magnetic reconnection". The energy source of PPL's system is "stored" in the form of electrons, and the motive force behind PPL's experiment is the flow of electrons. The moment that electrons stop flowing, is the moment their experiment comes to a screaching halt. Electrictiy is the motive force behind PPL's experiments.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You at least came out of EE, if I understand correctly. I came out of chemistry before switching over to CS, and while electricity and ionization and things like that are important in chemistry, they're not as important as they are in physics.</DIV></p><p>IMO it is very important to have some understanding of nuclear chemistry to fully understand what's happening in these energy discharge events, the photons that come from these events and the valance shell configurations that release specific photons. I would say you have a stronger background that someone who has no exposure to nuclear chemistry. The only extra thing I may have picked up is the fact that magnetic fields form as a full continuum and do not make and break connections like electrical circuits. It's an important thing to understand, because it's also the very thing that is being questioned. From an electrical theory perspective, this is a "extraordinary claim". As such it will require extraordinary support since it defies important aspects of electrical theory, and MHD plasma physical theory as Alfven taught it. Somone must demonstrate this claim before pointing at things in the sky and attributing them to "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>It's not just you who don't understand the underlying physics behind magnetic reconnection theory because no physical explanation has ever been defined. It's not personal in any way, nor is that lack of understanding surpising in any way. You'd get a Nobel prize in fact if you could actualy demonstrate and explain the physics behind "magnetic reconnection". The astronomers would jump all over such a thing.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>BTW, I don't deny that the flow of charged particles generate the field lines seen around sunspots and in coronal loops. I don't think mainstream astronomers do either; that's the explanation I've always heard. With the exception of ferromagnetism, you just don't get a magnetic field without a flow of charged particles. <br /> Posted by CalliArcale</DIV></p><p>The real issue comes back to the motive force behind the energy releases. Birkeland demonstrated that an external electrical source could be used to explain aurora, planetary rings, solar system layout (due to the ring currents) and coronal loop activity. He showed how it could cause 'jets" to form in the plasma as well. All of these things have been observed in nature. If an when someone shows me an experiments like Birkeland's that was able to generate all of these same observations using "magnetic reconnection", then I'll be happy to consider the idea viable. Without such a controlled experiment to back up PPL's claim about the aurora being due to "magnetic reconnection", and I can only assume that this statement is false, otherwise they would have shown how they are related just like Birkeland did. IMO Birkeland's emprical lab work trumps a thousand expert opinions about the causes of a planetary aurora, a planetary ring system, a coronal loop, etc. He didn't just make claims, he build controlled experiments to simulate these things in controlled conditions. He could see that the moment he turned off the power, the aurora stopped. They can't even create "magnetic reconnection" without current flow on huge scales. They are trying to suggest that there is a viable alternative to Birkeland's explaination of aurora, but they never bothered to back up their claims with emprical support. That's the part that annoys me.</p><p>FYI, I would fully support PPL's basic intent and the funding to study "magnetic reconnection" in a lab, so long as they can show how it can be done *without* using electricity as the motive force behind the experiement. As it stands, I don't see any rational way to distinguish with their current experiment how much energy released in this event is related to kinetic energy, electronic reconnection and "magnetic reconnection"". Magnetic fields are not the motive force behind PPL's current experiments. Electron flow is the motive force behind their experiment. It's important to keep in mind however that PPL's approach to empircial scientific testing is still t he only way to ever hope to demonstrate that magnetic reonnection is real and not just a misrepresentation of plasma physics as Alfven claimed. Empircal testing is worth funding IMO, even if the experiments are imperfect (they shoudl be fixed however) and even if the ultimate outcome is that they find that magnetic reconnection is nothing more than charge reconnection, or kinetic energy related. </p><p>My opinion Calli is that you are as much an expert on this topic as anyone at the moment. No one seems able to explain the physical energy release process that is unique to "magnetic reconnection". Likewise I've yet to see any experiment that used a magnetic field as the ultimate motive force behind the process. </p><p>Here's another thing to think about as it relates to these high energy events. When we point Rhessi at Earth, we observe gamma rays and x-rays coming from Earth's atmosphere. We know that Saturn's electrical discharges are many orders of magnitude greater than here on Earth. When we point that same Rhessi satellite at the solar atmosphere, we observe gamma and x-rays coming from the solar atmosphere. isn't it just logical to assume that these gamma and x-rays in the solar atmosphere related to electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere? </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
Bear with me a bit today. There's a lot her to respond to and it will take me awhile to catch up. Have no fear however, I will catch up. 
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p>Don't worry michaelmozina, I understand you've got a lot to read and digest. Afterall, you're fielding big questions from several different members. Take your time, be concise (I really do hate page long posts...but you have to write what you have to write....) and do the subject justice. I can wait. The others can too. Especially if it means you directly and fully address their questions. </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, you will certainly find ionized iron there...but that doesn't mean those loops are mostly iron. It will tell you that the iron that is there is ionized...okay, and that there is iron there. Okay. I fail to see your point though. </DIV></p><p>My point is that something is heating those iron ions to tens of millions of degrees in the atmosphere of the sun. Whatever force that might be also releases x-rays and gamma rays in the process. Now I can think of one force of nature that has done all of these things. Electrical discharges in plasma have even been known to create z-pinch reactions that release neutrons in the most extreme cases. Now lo and behold, Rhessi satellite images show the specific signature of neutron capture signatures in the solar atmosphere. Electrical currents have also been used to create aurora, planetary rings, coronal loops, and cathode generated plasma 'jets". Now what other known and demonstrated force of nature has done every single one of of those things? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, you certainly said a lot of things, without actually indicating any of the standard tried and true methodology.</DIV></p><p>Birkeland's method of emprical science, and Alfven's method of emprical science are standard tried and true methods of science. I put a high value on emprical science. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I'll let this slide for now. I'm probably going to start a "Standard model" thread here in the next few days, to explore how mainstream science models the sun (and you're welcome to ask questions in it, to understand that, just no EU) Last I talked with him was in 2001, duringone of his talks at the MARAC conference. </DIV></p><p>I had never spoken with Dr. Manuel, nor seen his work until 2003, *after* he had seen my website and was exposed to the solar model on my website. I think the rigid crust aspect may have had a significant effect on his opinions by that point in time.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's a significant problem with him braodening out his ideas though. If stars like our sun (which is amazingly average in all known regards compared to other G2 stars) was formed on the remnant of a supernova, how do stars that go supernova work? </DIV></p><p>The would probably represent a physical structure which has become unstable given the amount of current that is running through it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Are those normal hydrogen rich stars? </DIV></p><p>My guess is that "hydrogen rich" depends a lot upon the basic ingredients that a sun had to work with, but more importantly how many neutrons get pinched out of the plasma in the solar atmosphere at any given moment. You could see 'hydrogen rich" stars go supernova, as well as carbon rich stars. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For the record, I'm willing to listen to ideas about a few rare and specific stars being formed in this fashion...but all stars?</DIV></p><p>I can't see coming up with a solar model, only to claim it's a unique set of circumstances right from the start. How would we know it was unique in any way? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Even all G2 stars... I don't buy it. </DIV></p><p>Size and the atmosphere that came from the basic ingredients will have a widely varying effect on how much electrical current it might carry. It's positioning in a galaxy may also have a big influence on it's "glow pattern". I don't know for sure that any star is any different than our own sun in basic construction simply by virtue of it's photon output, particularly in a mass separated, and heat separted model. I would hate to simply "assume" our star is unique in it's basic construction before verifying that in some tangible way other than spectral output. There are just too many variations of elemental atmospheres to consider and too many variables as it relates to size, shape and positioning to consider. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Throw on the fact that Neutron stars are HOT and will push away any nebulae gases that wish to form around it and...well, I don't think so. </DIV></p><p>So how about we switch gears here a bit and solar interior models a bit and see if can't sell you on some variation of Birkeland's solar model? The primary benefits of a rapidly spinning core is that you might explain the 5 minute solar oscillations that way, you can explain the sun's 22 year cycle that way, and it explains the sun's powerful magnetic field, although we can probably explain that phenomenon with current flow too. </p><p>What if the sun's core is composed mostly negatively or positively charged iron/nickel and spins rapidly? Could charge repulsion play a role in this process? How about simply a relatively "hollow" core, one that looks more like that water bubble analogy? I'm open to ideas, so long as they conform to what I see in solar satellite images, and they can explain some of the key observations we're hoping to explain with a generic Birkeland solar model.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've looked at the "surfaceofthesun.com" web page, and you're refering to the first picture right? </DIV></p><p>Yes. There's a movie from LMSAL that goes along with it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Okay, what about it? </DIV></p><p>How about we start by agreeing on the light source? You've heard my explaination for these high energy photons. What's yours? Can we agree that the bulk of the light is originating in coronal loops?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I see a localized area that isn't changing much,</DIV></p><p>Seems kinda odd since the photosphere structures are changing every 8 minutes or so doesn't it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>at high temperatures which produce lots of iron ion lines. </DIV></p><p>How did the plasma get to such high temperatures?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>These features are comparable to the size of continents or entire planets...so I don't expect them to change much in short time periods (like say, months!). </DIV></p><p>Why don't helium filter RD images show these kinds of lasting shapes? What kind of changes would occur in the photospohere over say an hour and a half?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sorta like the big red spot on jupiter. It's huge, and for any feature to be that big it's either a) Insanely powerful and concentrated, and will disappear in short time frames, like an explosion. or b) metastable and self-building/sustaining. It'll take a long time for the feature to fade. <br /> Posted by Saiph</DIV></p><p>These images however show a difinite movement pattern to them that relates to the movements of the atmosphere. We do see movements in this image, particularly after the CME event. What are those "dust" particles we see after the CME event, and where did they go? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You see current flow as affecting planetary behavior? Please, elaborate. I see absolutely no planetary behavior that can be attributed to current flow. </DIV></p><p>Have you even looked at Birkeland's lab work yet? I ask this because Birkeland simulated aurora, planetary rings, atmospheric discharges and "tornado" like effects in his experiments and you seem to be ignorant of all of these behaviors that he simulated with "electrical reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Pure metaphysics (this really is as opposed to mainstream physics). </DIV></p><p>No, there is nothing metaphyscal about it. I posited no new forces of nature. I could be wrong of course, but there is nothing metaphysical about my explaination, with the possible exception of the neutron core itself, and even I am open to internal solar variations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are no physics that could allow this sort of thing to occur.</DIV></p><p>Huh? Temperature and density will have an influence on matter, right? Charge repulsion is real, and it has an effect on matter does it not?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no experimentation to give any inkling that this is possible. There is nothing, absolutely nothing (reality based or course) that supports this idea. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>The only thing you might complain about is that I am assuming that neutron material actually forms, and I've yet to see anyone sustain such a configuration of neutrons in a lab. That is the only "untested" part of this solar model. Note that you could swap out a neutron core with a rapidly spinning charged body of any sort, including a heavy plasma of some sort. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>????</p><p>quick question: You say you can't justify stellar models of other stars based solely on spectroscopic readings...but isn't that what you've done with our sun? Sure, more detailed readings, but just spectroscopic readings? </p><p>I'll also point out that I disagree with how you've done the spectroscopic analysis. I think you've fallen into the pitfal early astronomers did (which lead to one of the biggest breakthroughs in astronomy!)</p><p>While Dr. manuel and Alven may (arguably) have done solid and thurough investigations, I was refering to your personal analysis and "assumptions" you listed when you looked as spectrographs.</p><p>more later, I can't steal to much time during my breaks at work </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is exactly the kind of crap that is so annoying about Michael. He is great at arguing but falls way short in the science arena. </DIV></p><p>This is the personal attack side of your communication style that I personally find annonying. I think we'd both enjoy our conversations more if you focused on your specific scientific objections and you left me out of the discussion. These are ideas we are debating and discussing, not individuals. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He holds the mainstream at a much higher standard than his own conjectures and moves the goal posts with every new bit of data.</DIV></p><p>No, it's the same emprical standard.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He says first that fancy models about magnetic reconnection is useless, only empirical data is useful.</DIV> </p><p>Correct. Fancy computer models of elves are uttlerly useless unless we can show they have the claimed effect in controlled experimentation. That's true of anything.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> So of course when he is shown a site that demonstrates magnetic reconnection, he demands the physical process is important and the experimental results don't mean anything! </DIV></p><p>If we don't isolate the physics behind "magnetic reconnection", how do we isolate it from any ordinary electrical or particle recconnection process in plasma? The fact you can generate an energy release event with a motive force of huge amounts of electricity was never in doubt. The notion that "magnetic reconnection" is a unique form of energy release can only be demonstrated if we can physically isolate it's unique energy release signature in some way, and we can eliminate more mundain options, like standard particle interactions in plasma. They skipped an important step.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He is indignant that the physics were not on the site. The funny thing of course is the 'physics' are available.</DIV></p><p>What "physics" are you talking about? What is the unique physical energy release process of "magnetic reconnection'? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now of course Birkelands metal ball experiment is all that was needed to 'prove' EU. </DIV></p><p>Sure, that and direct observations of the same simulated effects he created in controlled experimentation, yes. He showed he could create rings, aurora, atmospheric discharges and coronal loop activity with electrical flow. When was that ever done with "magnetic reconnection" before they claimed aurora and "magnetic reconnection" are in any way related to one another? I can wave my hand and claim magic accelerates plasma too. Where's the emprical demonstration of this claim?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, that experiment is fine but how can you point to the sky and say electricity did it? Show me the Physics.</DIV></p><p>http://ia340919.us.archive.org/2/items/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdf</p><p>Careful, it's an 80 megabyte PDF file of Birkeland's experiments. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1. What is the voltage and amps needed to cause that heating of the sun?</DIV></p><p>Birkeland calculated this value. Care to tell me what it was? I'd like to know you're actually doing some reading.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2. What is the motive force for the electric field in space?</DIV></p><p>Charge separation. According to Alfven they are caused by vast clouds of matter and antimatter that are separated from one another. I personally haven't a clue where the current flow comes from, or where where it flows to, I just see it's obvious effects on our solar system and universe in general.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>3. Why is it not possible to detect the electric field?</DIV></p><p>It is. We can see coronal loops heating plasma to millions of degrees Kelvin! We can measure the magnetic fields around the Birkeland currents in the solar atmosphere. We can see the effects in planetary rings, and aurora and atmospheric discharges and a host of other activity in the universe as well.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>4. Why is the solar wind neutral (about the same number of protons and electrons) if it is being driven by an electric field? </DIV></p><p>This is like calling a lightening bolt "neutral plasma". It's not "neutral". it is "current carrying" plasma. The hydrogen and helium plasma are attracted to the relatively negatively charged heliosheath and they are light enough to escape the gravity well of the sun.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>????quick question: You say you can't justify stellar models of other stars based solely on spectroscopic readings...but isn't that what you've done with our sun? Sure, more detailed readings, but just spectroscopic readings? I'll also point out that I disagree with how you've done the spectroscopic analysis. I think you've fallen into the pitfal early astronomers did (which lead to one of the biggest breakthroughs in astronomy!)While Dr. manuel and Alven may (arguably) have done solid and thurough investigations, I was refering to your personal analysis and "assumptions" you listed when you looked as spectrographs.more later, I can't steal to much time during my breaks at work <br /> Posted by Saiph</DIV></p><p>That's the benefit of being self employed. There is no one complaining about how much time I spend doing this stuff. </p><p>Yes, you are correct, I personally did take a spectroscopic approach, but my method was ultimately unable to provide specfic elementatal abundance numbers for each element. Manuel's method works better in that respect, which is why I adopted his method, rather than try to come up with my own numbers from spectroscopic readings alone. I believe his method is more reliable than any spectroscopic model I might try to come up with. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<br /> Posted by Saiph</DIV></p><p>That's the benefit of being self employed. There is no one complaining about how much time I spend doing this stuff. </p><p>Yes, you are correct, I personally did take a spectroscopic approach, but my method was ultimately unable to provide specfic elementatal abundance numbers for each element. Manuel's method works better in that respect, which is why I adopted his method, rather than try to come up with my own numbers from spectroscopic readings alone. I believe his method is more reliable than any spectroscopic model I might try to come up with. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p>First, I'll address your last post.</p><p>Please, refresh me on Dr. Manuels methods. </p><p>Last I knew he determined, spectroscopically IIRC, that the elemental ratios of heavy radioactive isotopes to their decay products in asteroids in the asteroid belt were unusual, and didn't sit well with assumed isotope ratios at the formation of the solar system (and the assumed formation of the asteroids).</p><p>From this he concludes that the sun did not form as standard theory suggests, but from a heavy isotope rich supernovae remnant, and the gas gathered upon the resulting neutron star (not forming novae incidents as it does in other situtaions btw) and created the sun. The rest of the gas reformed into the solar system as we see it today.</p><p>Now, there are a few problems with this scenario: First, the conclusion seems a bit to grand for the problem. The asteroids have unusual isotope ratios...so perhaps they are abnormal asteroids. I could say that a) they weren't formed when the solar system did, perhaps they're the remnants of a small planetoid that broke up. That could account for the odd concentration of heavy metals. Or b) perhaps a nearby supernovae early in the suns lifetime seeded heavy isotopes around the system...without actually forming the sun. Either of those I can swallow easily...but to jump to the sun now being powered by fusion?</p><p>Then there's the formation around the nuetron star...why no nova event? How do you get a complete, uniform envelopment without touching off a nova? Also, how do you have one of (if not the only) lowest mass neutron stars around? Neutron stars are very tightly packed around, IIRC, the 2.5 solar mass range. </p><p>---------------------</p><p>Okay, back to the older questions about that surface image.</p><p>Coronal Loops at millions of degrees kelvin, agreed. No problem there. I'll point out that there isn't much in those loops, so the actual energy requirements (i.e. the real HEAT involved) are relatively low. I strenously object to you saying that this MIGHT release xrays and gamma rays, and if thats the case, the only explanation is plasma discharges. You are assuming information that isn't present (though might be a good lead to follow and FIND), and preposing a single, unequivocable solution. This is one of the tactics used in defense of alternate theories I really dislike. You make a few assumptions, provide a possible solution, and then deny that mainstream defenders can do anything similar. Take my claims (even an assumption) that convection in the envelope of a hydrogen/helium star can explain why there is no real stratification of heavy isotopes...and you don't even grant the possibility other than to say it doesn't convect. Anyway, to continue... </p><p> Now, this might be a plasma interaction, but even if it is...it doesn't mean the sun is powered this way. Only that the sun is energetic enough to power plasma interactions. I'll also point out that due to the high temperatures any heliuma and hydrogen there are basically invisible as they're nearly completely ionized at temperatures above 20,000 kelvin. So all you'll see are the metals.</p><p>Now, as for the sun being unique or not: In all ways that we have categorized G2 V stars, like our sun, our sun is completely typical in all respects. It fits into the middle of the pack, and is one of the most common star types (F and G are very common). As they fit in all spectroscopic, compositional, rotational, and mass parameters...it'd be really hard to say it's unique. So any mechanism you posit for the sun, shouldn't be to hard to stretch to the millions of other G2 stars. </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>see if can't sell you on some variation of Birkeland's solar model? The primary benefits of a rapidly spinning core is that you might explain the 5 minute solar oscillations that way, you can explain the sun's 22 year cycle that way, and it explains the sun's powerful magnetic field, although we can probably explain that phenomenon with current flow too. </DIV>Okay, I might buy this part, no reason why the standard model can't accomidate this. Actually, I believe it does have a rapidly rotating core producing the magnetic fields... Btw, how big is the core in Birklands model? </p><p>-----------------------------------</p><p>Onto the surfaceofthesun.com image:</p><p>I actually won't agree that the photons are originating in coronal loops. It looks like they are from the photosphere. And your claim that such structures on the photosphere last only 12 minutes is...well, wrong. Sunspots last for days, plumes and loops can easily last for hours (evena day or so). They also show up quite nicely in the hydrogen alpha wavelengths, which is how I've observed them.</p><p>As for how such regions can reach, say, 10,000 degrees: Back to my convection answer. Such regions occur under two general conditions, that of where a convection cell is rising, bringing hotter material up from beneath, and where magnetic fields influence and channel the ionized plasma that is the surface of the sun. Magnetic fields have a wonderful property of selecting high energy, high velocity particles and constraining the TIGHTER than the cool, lower energy, slow atoms that just meander out of the magnetic fields.</p><p>So having a turbulant surface, capable of warping and shifting local magnetic fields can select, filter, and direct the high energy atoms into regions of messy, complicated, magnetic fields. These regions can be created by, say, the junction between an ascending hot spot, and a decending cold spot. These two regions both drag around magnetic fields, creating some pretty tangled messes. By selecting for high energy atoms (as all magnetic fields do) and channeling them to these locations, the area can be further heated.</p><p>Now, if you want an explaination of flares...you merely need the tangle to shift so that a large portion of the magnetic field quickly rises out of the surface and thereby drags and expells a lot of the material around it. Why would it do this? Well, the field is channeling a lot of high energy, charged particles. These moving, charged particles influence the magnetic field. This could cause the field to tighten drastically..or even relax drastically as the moving charge re-distributes. This massive shift in magnetic fields (which can be slowly built up to, akin to earthquakes if you want an analogy) could creat the flares and ejections you see.</p><p>Okay, so I assume and spout all this "speculation" but I haven't supported it with any evidence yet. Well, here's a big one: Strong magnetic fields influence the emission/absorptoin spectra of atoms by taking whats normally one single transition, and splitting it into two or more (see the "Zeeman effect", and "Hyperfine transitions") If we look at these hot spots, we see strong,very strong, split lines, indicating strong magnetic fields in the area.</p><p>Now, this is all very similar to the plasma physics you talk about with one exception: I don't claim it powers the sun. I also require the sun to be liquid...or at least non-solid (i.e. almost entirely a plasma!)</p><p> </p><p>you mention helium filters not showing such formations... but trust me, Hydrogen Alpha filters do. Some really cool ones too.</p><p>As for the "Dust" of the cme...well, that's the ejected material...and it goes away, off into space. And observations show it's basically electrically neutral btw.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>--------------drumroll please-----------------</p><p>heres the really big, super duper, FUNDAMENTAL question you have to answer before I even give you an inch on EU btw, just so you know where the goal posts are:</p><p><font size="2"><strong>WHERE DOES THE ENERGY FOR YOUR SOLAR MODEL COME FROM?</strong></font></p><p>------You say it's from plasma discharges, and currents onto the sun. But that energy has to come from somwhere. It's like saying the light bulbs in my house are powered by copper wires... without acknowledging or implying the existence of the powerplants.</p><p>Fusion models for the sun provide a power source...so far I see none in your proposals. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
ack, didn't realize my post had gotten so long. My apologies...it does explain the cramps in my hands though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ack, didn't realize my post had gotten so long. My apologies...it does explain the cramps in my hands though. <br /> Posted by Saiph</DIV></p><p> </p><p>It was a good read. I second request for the need of an answer to your final question. It's been posited a few times now without a sufficient response. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> --------------drumroll please-----------------heres the really big, super duper, FUNDAMENTAL question you have to answer before I even give you an inch on EU btw, just so you know where the goal posts are:WHERE DOES THE ENERGY FOR YOUR SOLAR MODEL COME FROM?------You say it's from plasma discharges, and currents onto the sun. But that energy has to come from somwhere. It's like saying the light bulbs in my house are powered by copper wires... without acknowledging or implying the existence of the powerplants.Fusion models for the sun provide a power source...so far I see none in your proposals. <br /> Posted by Saiph</DIV></p><p>I'll tackle your other questions as I get time this weekend, but I figured I'd start with this one. This is a bit like asking me "where did the singularity prior to the BB come from"? How do I know? I'm like a guy who is limited to what he can obseve inside his house (solar system), and mabye in his backyard a bit, but there is no way I could tell you which powerplant put out the electrons that are providing the electricity to my computer at the moment, at least not from what I can observe in my house and my backyard. For all I know there may be multiple powerplants involved in that process, and it may change from moment to moment. </p><p>Having said that, Alfven proposed something like vast clouds of matter and antimatter in near equal amounts that continue to power the process. Even with Hubble, we cannot yet observe the physical borders of our visible universe, All we can see is our little visible sliver of a much bigger pie. Something like the power source would like be likely to be positioned on the other side of the current visible universe. The most honest answer I can give you for now is "I don't know for sure where those electrons come from, I simply know they flow through my house, and I know they flow through my solar system and galaxy.</p><p>Even with multiple plasma layers of seperation, the galactic magnetic sheath, the heliosphere and the magnetosphere, the aurora of the Earth sometimes light up like a Christmas tree. That would require an emmense amount of power to achieve something like that. </p><p>Keep in mind that Birkeland not only simulated aurora, he simulated planetary rings, coronal loops, atmospheric discharges, tornado like formations in the atmosphere and a host of other observed phenomenon using eletcrical curent as the power source. That simply cannot be a coincidence, and no one's ever duplicated his work with anything other than electricity as the motive force behind the process. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll tackle your other questions as I get time this weekend, but I figured I'd start with this one. This is a bit like asking me "where did the singularity prior to the BB come from"? How do I know? I'm like a guy who is limited to what he can obseve inside his house (solar system), and mabye in his backyard a bit, but there is no way I could tell you which powerplant put out the electrons that are driving providing the current to my computer, at least not from what I can observe in my house and my backyard. Having said that, Alfven proposed something like vast clouds of matter and antimatter in near equal amounts that continue to power the process. Even with Hubble, we can yet observe the physical borders of our visible universe, and something like the power source would like be on the other side of the current visible universe. The most honest answer I can give you for now is "I don't know for sure where those electrons come from, I simply know they flow through my house, and I know they flow through my solar system and galaxy.Even with at least three plasma layers of seperation, the galactic magnetic sheath, the heliosphere and the magnetosphere, the aurora of the Earth sometimes light up like a Christmas tree. That would take an emmense amount of power to achieve something like that. Keep in mind that Birkeland not only simulated aurora, he simulated planetary rings, coronal loops, atmospheric discharges, tornado like formations in the atmosphere and a host of other observed phenomenon using eletcrical curent as the power source. That simply cannot be a coincidence, and no one's ever duplicated his work with anything other than electricity as the motive force behind the process. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Magic is not an acceptable reply to the mechanism that clearly is central to your theory. You have made a point elsewhere of the sanctity of conservation of energy. Here is a case in point. What, precisely, is the source of that energy, what is the quantity (or at least energy density) produced, what is the source of the electric field that drives the direction of the current, and why is the proposed mechanism plausible and consistent will all physical observations ? You have two choices, answer these questions clearly and precisely or abandon a pretense that the theory is supported by physical priinciples.</p><p>Yes, as the proponent of the theory the onus is on you to prove it correct, not on others to prove it incorrect. Although, there have already been postings to peer-reviewed papers that address some of the tenets of the EU theory and discount them on the basis of inconsistency with long-established physics -- like classical electrodynamics.</p><p>Your analogy regarding purported lack of knowledge of power plants is reminiscent of the primitive societies that regarded crashed airplanes as acts of an unseen God and worshipped the wreckage. Good analogy there. Except here there is no big current flow and no wreckage, other than EU itself.</p><p>If you are looking for an "immense amount of power" you need look no farther than a fusion reaction. To find one you need only look at the big bright light.</p><p>Also, NOBODY knows where the BB singularity came from or for certain if there was a singularity. A singularity is one way of saying "we don't know". And we don't know the physics of the universe at time 0. Nobody does. The known physical laws don't work that far back. What we do know is that general relativity predicts that the universe was, in the beginning, very very compact. The theory predicts a singularity, which may simply be a breakdown in the theory itself. Time 0 is rather unknow. but 0 + 10^-33 s or so seems to be amenable to theoretical treatment. There is a vast difference between recognizing that current physica law is not up to the task of describing the VERY early universe, and having no idea whatever what the source is for an electrical current, which is a rather classical concept.</p><p>The onus is on you to provide an integrated description of your conjecture and to show that it is consistent with the body of physical principles, and where it may deviate to point out that fact clearly, describe the discrepancy and show how your notion integrates with the remainder and that the revised theory provides a better explanation for everything that is observed. I will be pleasantly surprised if you do not duck this issue as you have all other substantive questions. You can start with providing the source and driving potential for the current that you claim is flowing through the universe. It is time, figuratively, to put up or shut up. Straight answers, please. No evasion, no trying to change the question, and no babble. Just where is the current generated, by what mechanism is it generated, what is its magnitude, and what directs the flow.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana">You say current flow as affecting planetary behavior? Please, elaborate. I see absolutely no planetary behavior that can be attributed to current flow. </span><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">Have you even looked at Birkeland's lab work yet? <em><font color="#000080"><strong>Yes.</strong></font></em> I ask this because Birkeland simulated aurora, planetary rings, atmospheric discharges and "tornado" like effects in his experiments and you seem to be ignorant of all of these behaviors that he simulated with "electrical reconnection".<span> </span><em><font color="#000080"><strong>Oh, when you said planetary behavior I thought you meant something more than charged particles from the sun that get trapped in the earth’s magnetic field and result in auroral displays. <span> </span>If that is all you meant by planetary behaviour then we agree. <span> </span>You aren’t implying that the rings of Saturn are plasma, are you?</strong></font></em></span></p><p> </p><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana">Pure metaphysics (this really is as opposed to mainstream physics). </span><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">No, there is nothing metaphyscal about it. I posited no new forces of nature. I could be wrong of course, but there is nothing metaphysical about my explaination, with the possible exception of the neutron core itself, and even I am open to internal solar variations.<span> </span><em><strong><font color="#000080">What is metaphysical is that you are saying that there is this incredibly massive electrical field that is undetectable, and has no source. <span> </span>The wind exists, but if I say the wind is causing the planets to orbit the sun that would be metaphysical, just like the EU theory.</font></strong></em></span></p><p><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana">There are no physics that could allow this sort of thing to occur.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">Huh? Temperature and density will have an influence on matter, right?<span> </span><strong><em><font color="#000080">Yes.</font></em></strong> Charge repulsion is real, and it has an effect on matter does it not?<span> </span><em><strong><font color="#000080">Yes on charged matter that has the same sign.<span> </span>Gravity also has an influence on matter and the mathematics have been worked out so that all of the orbits of the planets have been calculated.<span> </span>The mathematics of gravity is used to calculate the change in the direction and speed of space probes.<span> </span>Electricity never comes into play.</font></strong></em> </span></p><p><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana">There is no experimentation to give any inkling that this is possible. There is nothing, absolutely nothing (reality based or course) that supports this idea. <br />Posted by origin</span> </p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">The only thing you might complain about is that I am assuming that neutron material actually forms, and I've yet to see anyone sustain such a configuration of neutrons in a lab. <strong><em><font color="#000080">No, the neutron core idea is so far fetched I did not even consider that.</font></em></strong> <span> </span>That is the only "untested" part of this solar model. Note that you could swap out a neutron core with a rapidly spinning charged body of any sort, including a heavy plasma of some sort.<span> </span><strong><font color="#000080"><em>No there is no tested part of the solar model.<span> </span>An iron ball with a dynamo in it having charged particles shot at it is very similar to a rough model of the earth.<span> </span>But there is NO evidence that this is in anyway remotely like the sun</em>.</font></strong><span> <strong><em><font color="#000080">See, in Birkelands model the charged particles are being shot AT the iron ball, I think you will agree that good old Sol is the one that is streaming out the charged particles. These situations are clearly not the same. </font></em></strong></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana"><span><em><font size="1" color="#000000">Edited to fix spelling and format</font></em></span></span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The most honest answer I can give you for now is "I don't know for sure where those electrons come from, I simply know they flow through my house, and I know they flow through my solar system and galaxy. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>How do you know this? What empirical data, that you so heavily rely on, leads you to this absolute conclusion. What detectors have detected an influx of electron into the sun? Wouldn't the Ulysses spacecraft have detected what should be a fairly huge amount of electrons flowing into the sun?</p><p>http://ulysses.jpl.nasa.gov/</p><p> </p><p>Just because Birkeland used an external source doesn't automatically allow for a logical conclusion that the sun does too. I don't know if this analogy really fits, but i'll use it anyway. They can create vortices in large rooms that can look quite similar to tornadoe so the can study how they act. Of course, they are using different mechanisms to create that vortex, but the results are quite similar on a smaller scale. They don't claim the mechanisms they use in a lab translate to what is used in a natural environment. </p><p>I'm sure you can tear the analogy apart, but the point is what is created in lab doesn't necessarily have to translate to what is seen in nature. The results might be similar and useful for study, but the process to create the results might not be the same as seen in nature. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Magic is not an acceptable reply to the mechanism that clearly is central to your theory. </DIV></p><p>In which specific sentence did I personally attribute anything to magic? Burn strawmen much? You'll note I didn't make up any new forces of nature in EU theory, I simply noted there was an undefined energy source behind a known and testable, emprically demonstrated physical process. Every astronomy theory begins with an accepted unknown. Where did the material that made up the pre-BB universe come from? The energy that makes up our universe must have predated this physical universe, at least if we are to believe the conservation energy laws of physics. My lack of knowledge about the source of electrons is certainly not a prerequisite to study EU theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have made a point elsewhere of the sanctity of conservation of energy. </DIV></p><p>Yes, as it relates to particle physics and plasma physics. I didn't ever try to speak to the conservation of energy laws as it relates to our physical universe, and no theory really does so. Where did the power to form a pre-BB singularity come from? What caused the pre BB universe to go boom? There are always questions we cannot answer at the start of any and all theories. Suffice to say tha the laws of physics suggest that whatever energy makes up our physical universe today, predated any sort of bang event, and any sort of timeline that I could ever hope to physically demonstrate, particularly since in EU theory you can't circumvent the laws of physics and claim that the universe explains on magic waves. There is there no easy way to set an age of the universe because EU theory doesn't have magic inflation, and space expanding "dark energy".</p><p>The significant difference is that core EU assumptions are all related to known forces of nature, specifically the flow of electrons. There is nothing "untestable" or "unfalsifiable" about "electron flow". How would I falsify my magic elves t sprinklling their magic inflation dust to get things started?</p><p>It is absurd to criticize EU theory because there are "unknown power sources" involved in creating/sustaining a physical universe. What is tangibly different in EU theory is that it is based on testable physics, not made up inflation faeries and "dark" (aka unflasifiable) forces. There is no part of EU theory that is outside testable physics. That quite differant than something like LAMBDA-CDM theory where we have to have faith in pure metaphysics, many times over.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here is a case in point. What, precisely, is the source of that energy,</DIV></p><p>Vast clouds of matter and antimatter? God's thoughs? There is also the possibility that each sun's rapidly spinning core and slower moving iron shell contribute relatively small induction currents to the overall process, and that galaxies are large "generators" made up of small amounts of induction currents created in every star within the galaxy. I already gave you the only honest scientific answer I could give you. I don't begin to know (all) the full source(s) of these currents. We can speculate about the creation of the universe and the forces that sustains this current flow within our physical universe, but that is a bit beyond the scope of basic EU theory. Unlike "big picture" theories, EU theory is a theory that is predicated on emprical data, and "little picture" in-situ confirmations of the effects of these electric currents on tangible physical things. As it relates to measuring these currents, we only have the technology to gather in-situ measurements inside (maybe a little outside) the sun's heliosheath. We might be able to measure magnetic field strengths around these current flows from a distance and use that information to calculate the current flows between various objects, but there is no need in basic EU theory to try look at EU theory as a "big picture" theory. It could support BB theory of course since EM fields are the only known force of nature known in the universe that is 39 OOM more powerful than gravity, and therefore if anything went "BANG" from a massive gravitional singularity, it most certainly involved the flow of an increadible amount of electrical current.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>what is the quantity (or at least energy density) produced, what is the source of the electric field that drives the direction of the current,</DIV></p><p>These are legitimate questions. I doubt the Hubble telescope could image every possible source of them. The source(s) are simply unknown at this time. The quantity of energy would depend entirely on the size and scope of the physical universe. I don't actually know how big, vast or old out physical universe might be, and I have no idea if it's the only one or it's but one of many of multiverse beyond my comperehension. I'm happy to simply look for and measure these currents to the best of physical ability and leave it at that. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and why is the proposed mechanism plausible and consistent will all physical observations ? </DIV></p><p>The only "plausible' mechanism, as in the only lab tested mechanism that is known to create aurora, coronal loops, atmospheric discharges galore is "electricity". There is no other "plausible" (as in lab tested) explanation to choose from. It's a matter of deductive reasoning and sweat equity emprical scientific testing on the part of Birkeland and Alfven and Peratt, etc. </p><p>What other plausible mechanism would be able to reproduce Birkeland's observations other than current flow. You tell me.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have two choices, answer these questions clearly and precisely or abandon a pretense that the theory is supported by physical priinciples.</DIV></p><p>Current flow, particularly current flow in plasma is supported by physical principles. The only thing you're complaining about is that I can't explain something that may be beyond our ability to ever explain. Like LAMBDA-CDM theory, EU theory has a few "unknowns". Unlike LAMBDA-CDM theory, EU theory doesn't try to stuff the gaps of the unknowns with metaphysical fudge factors. "I don't know" is an acceptable answer in EU theory. Metaphysical and unfalsifiable answers are not acceptable in EU theory. I can still test my theory about current flowing through the universe is all the normal emprical scientific methods. Nothing about EU theory is unfalsifiable, though some things may be unanswerable, at least for the time being. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, as the proponent of the theory the onus is on you to prove it correct, not on others to prove it incorrect.</DIV></p><p>Ok, so prove to me that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination. I can at least think of ways to test for the presence of electrical current in and through objects in space, and inside the plasma threads of space. How could we hope to emprically "prove" inflation isn't a fudge factor of epic proportions? Better yet, tell me how I might falsify inflation or dark energy? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Although, there have already been postings to peer-reviewed papers that address some of the tenets of the EU theory and discount them on the basis of inconsistency with long-established physics -- like classical electrodynamics.</DIV></p><p>They "discounted" them because they assumed that the universe was a "neutral" plasma rather than a current carrying one. It's like looking at the emissions from the plasma in an arc welder and realizing that you can't explain these emissions from the plasma in the arc if the objects in the arc have to power the events. Their premise was flawed, and thus their "discount" of the idea was a forgone conclusion. It is actually improper for you to suggest that EU theory was discrounted in these papers. They didn't even assume the same conditions as EU theory assumes, so it only indirectly related to EU theory. EU theory however is *not* based upon the premise that the local physical objects in the universe provide all the energy that is being emitted by the local objects (like suns) in the universe. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your analogy regarding purported lack of knowledge of power plants is reminiscent of the primitive societies that regarded crashed airplanes as acts of an unseen God and worshipped the wreckage. Good analogy there. Except here there is no big current flow and no wreckage, other than EU itself.</DIV></p><p>I have no idea why would would "throw stones" like that, when the current LAMBDA-CDM theory is predicated upon two different "dark and mysterious" thingambobs. Plasma physics isn't primative. Calling something "dark" this or "dark" that, when you can't actually explain the physics, now that is "primative" behavior IMO.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you are looking for an "immense amount of power" you need look no farther than a fusion reaction. </DIV></p><p>I'm not looking for *any* power source, I'm looking for the one that powers this universe. That lack of descrimination is what got us in trouble in the first place IMO. Once we finally figured out the Earth is billions of years old, we needed a way to explain how the sun could shine for that long. They simply "assumed" that the sun must be it's own internal power source, so they turned to the only thing that might actually provide that much power. The problem however is that no one actually established the fact that a sun was completely internally powered, nor are we sure that fusion is the only power source of our sun.</p><p>Those million degree coronal loops are fusion driven events in your opinion? How do they get to be millions of degrees K when the photosphere is OOMS cooler? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also, NOBODY knows where the BB singularity came from or for certain if there was a singularity. </DIV></p><p>Oh, you mean your theory begins with an unknown? Sorry, by your rule system it must be disqualified. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...? Oh, you mean your theory begins with an unknown? Sorry, by your rule system it must be disqualified. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>First, it is not a rule system, it is a theory, A theory with proven predictive power, and a tremendous amount of experimental data that demonstrates that power. And it is not my theory. I wish I could take credit for it, but that rightly belongs to others.</p><p>More importantly the current cosmological theory does not begin at the instant of the Big Bang. It actually begins now, with what is observed of the cosmos at this point in time. From those observations, most especially the empirical measurement of the cosmic background radiation, one deduces from general relativity that the universe was once in an extremely compact state. General relativity itself has been tested under controlled conditioins many time and found to have great predictive power. A calculation following the principles of general relativity results in a singularity, which is a point at which the prediction breaks down. The calculation takes general relativity beyond the limits in which it is known to be valid, but there is no indication that the calculation does not provide a valid calculation for the great majority of the life of the universe. What happened before about 10^-33 seconds is not well known. It is pretty clear that whatever was going on before that pont involves both gravity and quantum theory and at this time there simply is no viable theory of quantum gravity. The singularity is an expression of that lack of knowledge and is not a requirement for the remainder of the theory. So there is no need to throw anything out just yet. We simply have to admit that we are in the dark regarding the very earliest period in the formation of the universe. It is simply a matter of how much of the theory requires empirical data for the initial conditions. </p><p>As far as what is currently observed the situation is quite a bit better. General relativity and quantum theory explain most of what is observed today. In fact classical gravitation and classical electrodynamics are valid most of the time and agree with relativity and quantum theory within their range of validity. Quantum electrodynamics seems to cover all of chemistry and all processes not involving gravity or nuclear behavior. Nuclear physics is pretty covered by the theory of the electro-weak force plus quantum chromodynamics, although work continues on GUTS to unify those two elements. General relativity seems to adequately describe the gravitational effects for most situations. Clear exceptions are those exotic situations that appear to involve both strong gravitational fields and quantum phenomena. There we just don't know. </p><p>There does seem to be a problem with the lack of observed mass and associated gravitational forces in the outer portions of some rotating galaxies being sufficient to hold them together under the observed rotational speeds. The fashionable explanation is "dark matter" but that is rather a code for "we aren't quite sure" and is an incentive for more good research into physics. Dark matter need not be exotic matter, just matter that is difficult to detect other than by an apparent gravitational influence. Years ago Pluto might have fit the bill for dark matter of a sort, but then we found it. </p><p>A more perplexing issue is the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe. Assuming that the data continues to support such an acceleration, some phenonema is needed to cause that acceleration. One possible explanation is the "cosmological constant" that can be part of the formulation of general relativity. Einstein added and then retracted such a constant, calling the use of it his greatest mistake. But it may be the key to explaining the observed expansion. A possible justification for this constant is "dark energy". But whether such stuff is real is open to debate. I think that a lot more work and evidence is needed before the notion "dark energy" can be accepted. Until then it is really just a place holder and a reminder that there is a profound question to be answered. We do not have an ultimate theory for physics. Physics is still a developing subject. But it develops by refinement and not by completely destroying work that has been proved to be of extraordinary predictive power for many many situations. Thre is no reason whatever to throw the baby out with the bathwater. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>Not trying to be a sycophant here, but that is one of the clearest, most honest, descriptions I've read recently regarding said subject matter. Hats of to ya, Dr.Rocket.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First, it is not a rule system, it is a theory,</DIV></p><p>Ultimately it is a human "belief system" that may or may not be emprically demonstrable in controlled experimentation. An emprically demonstrateable process is "emprical truth", whereas something that cannot be emprically demonstrated is an act of faith. LAMBDA-CDM theory is not a belief system that can be emprically demonstrated. It is an act of faith in the final analysis. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A theory with proven predictive power,</DIV></p><p>See, IMO this idea about LAMBDA-CDM theory is that it's been a "postdicted" theory from the start. When I was in college the "consensus" of the time is that gravitational attraction was slowing down the explansion rate over time and the universe was probably decelerating over time. Now of course this was all before the Hubble telescope, most of the current satellite programs and even before Guth's inflation theory had become popular. It was ok to simply note expansion and to admit we didn't know what caused it back then. That concept of deceleration continued post Guth and post inflation theory. Only later "surprises" found by the study of SN explosions caused anyone to claim the universe was actually accelerating. The standard theory only "postidicted" acceration after we observed it. When you understand the history behind BB theory as I do, it's obvious that standard theory has never had any real "predictive" ability, rather, it's a postdicted belief system that was patched together after the fact, and patched with metaphysical band-aids as time went by. There was never any real "predictive" feature of standard theory, it's an entirely postdictied theory based on surprises galore. It's rather odd from my persespective to now claim it "predicted" much at all. Inflation "predicted" a homogenous layout of matter, and now we know that the unviverse has giant holes in it, that defy inflations "predictions". There is nothing particularly "predictive" about standard theory IMO. It's a postiicted belief system for the most part. Back in 70's the idea was that galaxies too "billions" (plural) of years to form. Now we know they were there as far back as we can see, and were certainly around less than a billion years (singular) after the presumed 'bang".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and a tremendous amount of experimental data that demonstrates that power.</DIV></p><p>What "experimental" (controlled experiments) data supports inflation or dark energy? In my experience, when astronomers use the term "experimental data", they aren't actually talking about emprical, physical, controlled scientific testing like Birkeland did in his lab. They usually mean that they have simulated their idea in a mathematical computer simulation and that they have made the computer simulation match some pure (uncontrolled) observation in the sky. That isn't empircal science, that is math being slapped to the side of metaphysical magic. Inflation has never accelerated anything in a "controlled" experiment. It's never had any effect on matter in a controlled test. You can't even tell me where "dark energy" comes from, let alone how to build a source of "dark energy", or test that actually exists in nature or has any effect on nature. The fact that plasma experiences acceleration in some distant observation is not evidence that dark energy had anything to do with it, irrespective of how much math you slap to the idea of "inflation" or "dark energy". Unless you can emprically demonstrate that your math is applicable, it's simply mythical math, and metaphysics. Show me how "dark energy" has any effect on anything in a controlled experiment, and I'll be happy to let you point to the sky and claim "dark energy did it". If you don't do the first part, the second part is like pointing to the sky and claiming magic did it. There is no amount of math that can be attached to a metaphysical concept that exempts the idea from requiring validation in a controlled test. A computer can be made to simulate how many elves fit on the head of a standard pin, but no amount of fancy mathematics, or cool computer models related to elves is going to make them real, or make my computer simulation real by virtue of the fact it came up with a number. Math related to plasma physics and tangible, testable physics is fine. Math related to elves, unicorns, inflation, dark energy and SUSY particles are pointless without emprical support that these things exist in reality and have some actually physical effect on reality.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And it is not my theory. I wish I could take credit for it, but that rightly belongs to others.More importantly the current cosmological theory does not begin at the instant of the Big Bang. It actually begins now, with what is observed of the cosmos at this point in time. </DIV></p><p>Actually, in my experience, EU theory begins that way, where today's brand of BB theory seems to drive what's "popular" and what receives air time, and publishing column space. You can't for instance demonstrate that inflation exists here and now. You can't demonstrate that dark energy has any affect on anything here and now in a controlled experiment. Dark matter isn't even factored into any calculation of a solar system, yet is supposedly 5 times more abundant that ordinary matter. Why doesn't it or dark energy ever interact with our solar system in tangible ways? You don't find that the leas bit suspicious? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From those observations, most especially the empirical measurement of the cosmic background radiation, one deduces from general relativity that the universe was once in an extremely compact state.</DIV></p><p>At most you might deduce from expansion that matter was once more concentrated than it is today. You have no idea if all matter was ever condensed to a singularity. Even the singularity idea is an act of faith. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>General relativity itself has been tested under controlled conditioins many time and found to have great predictive power. </DIV></p><p>GR theory in my day is nothing like the Gumby-Lambda, "push-me-pull-you" thingy that Lambda-CDM theory has become. Sure, I'll be happy to grant you that GR theory as Einstein taught it is useful. Lambda-CDM theory however is based on the concept of stuffing a theory about attraction between objects with mass with masasive amounts of mataphysical entities that cannot be falsified or tested in any way. GR theory is not the same as Lambda-GR.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A calculation following the principles of general relativity results in a singularity, which is a point at which the prediction breaks down. </DIV></p><p>You don't know that all matter was condsnece to a point. All you know is that it was probably more condensed than it is today. The very idea that all matter was ever condensed to a point is pure speculation. I therefore do not if anything ever "broke down" as you suggest. Einstein referred to the introduction of a constant into GR his greatest blunder, because it unnecessarily complicated an otherwise elegant theory of gravitation attraction, and force behind C (which he never specified) may not even have been related to gravity in the first place! There is no need to introduce a repulsive force into GR, particularly since GR is all about the attraction between two object made of mass. Any force of acceleration would not necessarily have anything at all to do with GR, so why *assume* it does? If that repulsive force doesn't directly come from gravitation attraction, why stuff the math into a GR formula? How do you know gravity can "repulse" at all? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The calculation takes general relativity beyond the limits in which it is known to be valid, but there is no indication that the calculation does not provide a valid calculation for the great majority of the life of the universe.</DIV></p><p>Imagine how you'd feel if stuffed a theory about magic uncorns driving acceleration, and I stuffed it into a GR formula? That's exactly how I feel about stuffing dark things into GR. GR by itself is testable physics. GR with metaphsical friends stuffed into the math is useless, even if my math reveals to us how many unicorns are involved in the acceleration process. There is nothing about this metaphysical concept of unicorns that is improved simply by stuffing it into a GR formula.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What happened before about 10^-33 seconds is not well known. </DIV></p><p>Even the belief that all matter was condensed to a point is "now well known". It's pure speculation in fact, particularly if you're going to stuff metaphysical ideas into the mythos. I think you're already making assumptions you can't logically demonstrate. Nothing made of mass moves faster than the speed of light according to GR, and our universe is well over 27.4 light years accross, so without all kinds of metaphysical fudge factors, there is no way for us to know when the universe began, how condensed matter may have been, or what the early universe may have looked like. The best we can really do is look at the small sliver of the physical universe that we can observe from our little mud ball in space and speculate about where it all came from. If there ever was a "singularity", what in the world would make it "blow" one fine day? The whole thing should have imploded due the gravitation force the moment the process began. You can't envoke inflation or magic to overcome graivty beccause neither has been shown to exist in nature.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I think that a lot more work and evidence is needed before the notion "dark energy" can be accepted. </DIV></p><p>But you can't gain "evidence" that dark energy does anything from uncontrolled observations in the sky. The only way that "dark energy" could be empirically demonstrated is in a lab. I can tell you that the easiest way to explain the acceleration of plasma is with EM fields because plasma is particularly influenced by EM fields and can be shown to be accerated by EM fields in something as simple as an ordinary plasma ball. If and when you show me that "dark energy" does anything to anything in a controlled experiment, I have zero faith that it exists in nature, let alone that it affects the universe.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Until then it is really just a place holder and a reminder that there is a profound question to be answered.</DIV></p><p>But I can already "answer" it for you. It's a placeholder term for EM Fields because no other field in nature has been shown to have that affect on a mostly plasma environment. It's a placeholder term for human ignorance of the EM fields that permeate spacetime. The interesting part of this discussion is that you can't even rule out my claim because you can't identify what "dark energy" actually is, and for all you know, I could be right. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We do not have an ultimate theory for physics. Physics is still a developing subject. But it develops by refinement and not by completely destroying work that has been proved to be of extraordinary predictive power for many many situations. </DIV></p><p>Emprical physics is testable and reproduceable, and falsifiable. How would I falsify "inflation"? When I hear about how "physics will catch up" to these ideas, I can't help but see that as an act of desparation. Like I've said before, anything is "possible", but emprical physical science is based on physics and controlled experimentation and physical things. "Dark energy" is not a "physical thing", at least it has never been shown to exist or have any effect on matter. If all you're trying to do is explain the acceleration of force behind plasma movements, you certainly don't need any "dark energy" to explain that behavior. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thre is no reason whatever to throw the baby out with the bathwater. </p><p> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The "baby" in this case is what is emprically testable. Inflation falls outside of that realm. SUSY particles fall outside of that realm. Dark energy falls outside of that realm. The metaphysical bathwater represents 95% of the "dark" items/energies of the thoery It is 95% bathwater, and only 5% emprical science. That is not a good track record by any scientific standards. The basic advantage of EU thoery is that it is based on *no* forms of metaphysical entities and every aspect theory is physically testable, at least within the limits of our technologies. What we can't actually create in lab, we can simulate on a computer too, just like Lamba-CDM theory. The difference however is striking. Every aspect of EU theory is based on mathematical models of known forces of nature. That cannot be said for Lambda-CDM theory. 95% of it's precepts cannot be emprically demonstrated or falisified in any way. </p><p>The issue here is really simple as I see it. It's really all about emprical science vs faith in a belief system that lacks emprical support. I know that creationists tend to get very upset at me when I point out that their belief systems are not based on emprical science, but rather they are based upon pure faith. Lambda-CDM proponents also get uptight when I point out that Lambda-CDM theory is not based upon emprical testing, rather it is an act of pure faith in at least 2 forms of metaphysics. It is a "belief system" that cannot be emprically demonstrated. This revelation obviously has an unsettling affect on some astronomers. It's not my fault however when someone builds their beliefs systems on faith based dogma rather than emprical scientific testing. I'm simply the messenger. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not trying to be a sycophant here, but that is one of the clearest, most honest, descriptions I've read recently regarding said subject matter. Hats of to ya, Dr.Rocket. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>How might we honestly go about falsifing the belief system of inflation? How about "dark energy"? Since I can't demonstrate a negative, isn't the onus of responsibilty on the mainstream to emprically prove that SUSY particles exis, and that they are longed lived particles? When did "hope" replace emprical testing in astronomy?</p><p>Birkeland didn't simply "hope" that "dark energy" powered the aurora. He came up with a real physically testable idea and he built a working model to test his real physical theories. He left nothing to chance. While Birkeland could integrate and do derivatives with the best of them, he didn't rely *only* upon his mathematical models. He also relied upon tried and true, controlled emprical testing. With electrical current he was able to produce all the effects he expected to be able to produce in controlled scientific experimentation. Nothing was left to chance. IMO Birkeland was the quitessential emprical scientist. The computer models that pass for "science" today are completely lacking in emprical scientific support. That's really the bottom line here. Somewhere along the line we went from real physics in Birkeland's lab, to physical methology based only on mathematical modeling, supernatural forces, and wishful thinking. Guth may have "wished" that the universe was homogenous, but today we know it is not. The key "prediction" of inflation was it's "prediction" of a homogeneous layout of matter. For years astronomers have held up that prediction as evidence of the validity of inflation. Today however we know that the universe actually has huge gaping holes in it. Doesn't that observation falsify inflation since it falsifies the key prediction of inflation? Of course not. Since inflation is "made up"" to begin with, someone will now come along and "postidict" and new mathematical formula for inflation that "predicts" a non homogenous layout of matter and then that new "prediction" of a non homogeneous layout of matter will be incorporated back into a new variation of inflation theory. Astronomers will then claim that the value behind the new inflation theory is the fact that it's a good "predictor" of the non homogenous layout of matter. Sheesh! Please don't tell me about the useful "predictive" abilities of current theory. I'm too old, and I know too much to fall for that gag. That may work with a wet behind the ears college freshman, but I'm afraid I've been around the metaphysical block too many times to fall for that one again. </p><p>The whole inflation idea is just plain goofy IMO, and without there's no show at all. It's "predictive usefulness" is actually zero. The gravity well from all that mass would have made it implode the moment particles started to form. Inflation has never been shown to exist in nature. For years scientists have proudly claimed that inflation "accurately predicted' a homogeneous layout of matter. Now we know that the universe has gaping holes in it. Inflation never accruately "predicted" anytihing, and it's a truly "supernatural" entity since no other vector or scalar field in nature acts even remotely like Guth's "free lunch" field. </p><p>Dark energy? Come on! Show me how "space (whatever that is) expands" or show me that any real vacuum can have a 'negative pressure energy density", then you can tell me that dark energy isn't a figment of someone's overactive imagination. Until then I can think of a perfectly logical way to explain the acceleration of a plasma body that has absolutely nothing to do with metaphysics and that can easily be demonstrated in a lab. From an Occum's razor perspective, dark energy hasn't got a prayer's chance in hell of ever being validated or falsified. In fact there's no guarantee that "Dark energy" isn't an EM field in the first place since the term "Dark energy" is not a term involving real physics, rather it is a placeholder term for human ignorance in the first place. For all any astronomer actually knows, "Dark energy" is actually "electrical curent and large scale EM fields". By the way, EM fields tend to create a non homogenous layout of matter too. Why do we need inflation and dark energy again? What did they ever "predict" that was physically useful or that proved to be true? </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 191
-
-
What has to happen in 2025 to move the UAP story forward?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 11
-
David Lynch's 'Dune' at 40: David Lynch's 1984 adaptation is a true spice oddity
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram