Thursday, 29 September 2011

The Electric Universe Theory Debunked

I kept hearing about this theory called the “electric universe theory”, and wondered what it was all about. An ex-work colleague was quite worked up about it and even lent me some books. What was this theory and where on earth did it come from?

According to the website www.electricuniverse.info the “Electric Universe theory highlights the importance of electricity throughout the Universe. It is based on the recognition of existing natural electrical phenomena (eg. lightning, St Elmo’s Fire), and the known properties of plasmas (ionized “gases”) which make up 99.999% of the visible universe, and react strongly to electro-magnetic fields.” It goes on to state “Electricity is common throughout the universe, generated by all cosmic plasma as it moves through magnetic fields. Peer reviewed papers describe electricity in the Sun, and associated with the interplanetary medium (solar wind), planets and their satellites, comets, in interstellar space, other stars, and intergalactic space.” Well that sounds pretty convincing, doesn’t it?

We astronomers often stumble across new theories, and after a while a certain degree of ‘learned scepticism’ enters the fray. So I decided to take a closer look at this theory. The theory seemed to be all encompassing and rather difficult to pin down, so in order to do this, I focused on what the theory has to say about our sun in particular. Astrophysicists say that stars, including the sun, are powered by nuclear fusion. However electric universe theorists say this is not so. The reasons given are that:

  1. we haven’t yet found the neutrinos that must be emitted from such a reaction;
  2. that the granular structure we see on the sun would not be possible, because convection is impossible due to the conditions there;
  3. the energy emitted from the sun does not display the inverse square law;
  4. periodic fluctuations in the sun’s output resemble electric discharge patterns; and
  5. the solar wind is and effect of charged particles being accelerated in an electric field.

Well that all sounds very plausible and ‘scientificy’. But let’s take a closer look at the arguments one by one.

Neutrinos have not been found?

A neutrino is a particle smaller than an atom with an incredibly small mass to it. They are similar to electrons, but don’t have a charge. They usually travel close to the speed of light, and not having a charge means they are unaffected by electromagnetic forces like other matter, and are able to pass through ordinary matter almost unaffected.

Neutrino observatories are actually underground because the neutrinos pass right through the earth. Neutrinos are created as a by-product result of nuclear fusion (in a nuclear plant or the sun) or when cosmic rays hit atoms. Every second about 65 billion solar neutrinos pass through every square centimetre of earth facing the Sun. Because they have a mass, neutrinos can interact with other particles via gravity.

Scientists have been detecting the effects of neutrinos for years, and they match the predictions exactly. If an alternative theory is to be considered, scientists would need to reject the theory of nuclear fusion at the centre of a star. This would also necessarily lead to rejection of the theories of thermodynamics, gravitation, nuclear physics, statistical physics, electromagnetism, hydrodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics. In other words, most of physics would need to be rejected to address the problem of the ‘missing’ neutrinos.

Electric universe theorists argue that these neutrinos have never been detected, and those inferred by their effects are about half of what would be produced by a fusion reaction in the sun.

Some of you will be familiar with quantum mechanics, where all particles can have both wave and particle properties. Well, neutrinos are confusing too, as they have mass and therefore qualify as a particle. When they are detected they have a probability of being either an electron neutrino or a tau neutrino. We have electron neutrino detectors, and once we build a tau neutrino detector the ‘flux’ will add up to the exact amount to solve the solar problem. So maybe it is a bit premature to throw physics out just yet.

Convection in the sun is impossible?

Electric universe theory argues that the granulation we observe on the surface of the sun cannot be caused by convection bubbling up the layers of the sun. This is based on an assumption by a man called Juergen, that one of the values used in fluid dynamics, the Reynolds number, causes the convection, and at certain values convection cannot occur.
If you imagine a parcel of matter inside the sun towards the surface as the sun’s heat causes it to rise and falling back towards the centre as it cools (like boiling water), the Reynolds number describes a function of the parcel size, length and stickiness.

Juergen assumes that the Reynolds number controls convection but it doesn’t; convection is controlled by the Rayleigh number. The Rayleigh number is a function of the temperature, gravity, the degree of temperature change, stickiness and how diffuse the temperature is. So Juergen made a mistake, oops. The convection that we see on the sun can be explained without throwing away physics.

The sun’s energy breaks the inverse square law?

In physics, the inverse square law states that a specified physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity. So in other words if you move from two metres to four metres away from a heater you increase the distance by two, but decrease the energy by four times (four is the square
of two). Electric universe theory says that because the sun is coolest at its surface, then the temperature jumps up again out at its halo, it does not obey the inverse square law, and physics is wrong.

At this point it is important to note that the inverse square law only applies to radiant energy (as opposed to convection or conduction) and only in a vacuum. When energy moves through an atmosphere (such as the corona of the Sun) then the law does not hold. In addition, the inverse square law applies to all energy, not just heat. The colder ‘surface’ (photosphere) actually has more energy. The energy drops dramatically at the corona as we would expect. There are a myriad of explanations for the temperature differences, none of which involve throwing out physics as we know it.

The sun’s variations prove it is a bag of plasma?

Electric universe theory says that the variations in the sun every 2 hours and 40 minutes or
so can only be explained if the sun was a big bag of gas undergoing periodic electrical discharge. Juergen cites some research that shows this period is what we would expect from a homogenous sphere, rather than the accepted layered model of the sun found in
textbooks. Well that is a problem ... isn’t it?
OK, time for some context here. The research cited was in 1976 and the authors stated that it applies only if they are p-mode oscillations. But back then we didn’t have the technology to distinguish between p-mode and g-mode oscillations. Later research, available to the electric universe theorists, showed they were gmode, so basically all the assumptions based on this research went out the window. It doesn’t matter too much what the modes are, the point is that the electric universe theory was based on outdated information from 1976. Very poor research indeed!

The solar wind is caused by an electric field?

In physics an electric field applied to charged particles cause them to accelerate. The
Electric universe theory says that the solar wind is the result of such a field, and the Sun is electric, not fusion based.

Maxwell’s theory of acceleration, however, talks about a time variable field, not a fixed one, and what’s more the solar wind contains both positive and negatively charged ions (protons and electrons mainly). An electric sun would be positively charged and all the negatively charged electrons would be attached to it – not be pushed out from the Sun on a solar wind. This fact proves the Sun is not electric.

And then the wheels fell off…


Hmmm. Towards the end of my research I found a notation on Wikipedia about why “Electric Universe Theory” had been removed. Apparently there are only a few people who currently publish ideas on the “electric universe” and those people publish exclusively on the internet or vanity presses. They use very misleading citations gleaned from mainstream sources in an attempt to lend credibility to the “electric universe theory”. Most papers listed as peer reviewed are not about the “electric universe” but about plasma cosmology (a different idea). The “electric universe” has no single paper subject to peer review about its ideas.

Well, it seems this is not a theory that anyone should be hanging their hat on. However, I will say that my little exploration did lead me to learn an awful lot about neutrinos, and our Sun. I hope that next time you read an outlandish theory you might take this journey too. You never know what you might learn.

158 comments:

  1. Thanks for that. I stumbled across this "electric universe" idea while researching something else. Not only could I find no good summaries of what the theory actually was, but I couldn't find understandable debunkings (...most people ignore it completely, which is understandable, and those who don't often seem just as crazy as the EU folks). This point-by-point take down is effective. Nicely done, and appreciated. I feel much better informed now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WARNIG! I know the Electric Universe Theories quite good. This website is NOT a critism of Electric Universe as it doesn't represent the widely accepted Model!!!
      An example: The new Sun model is very complex, not a simple Kathod!
      Even the first Headline is a LIE!
      January 2013 was a conference. I watched most of the Videos.

      Here on this page everything that speaks AGAINST BigBang is excluded. You cannot pick out 5 points and explain the universe. You most see it as one full picture.

      As I am quite familiar with both models, I can say the EU model looks much better.

      Delete
    2. Shhhhh. No tears, only dreams now.

      Delete
    3. I'm new to this site, so I don't have much to offer. But, I don't think anyone can debunk an entire theory (EU) in a few paragraphs.

      I've spent a lot of time at the EU site and Thunderbolts of the Gods site and find their arguments compelling - even though I'm NOT a scientist.

      In order to debunk anything you need scientific facts and models, not general assumptions.

      Naming scientists and their theories without any further explanation of their formulas, graphics, and various other models, is NOT scientific. You have to do much more to convince me that your debunking a reality.

      P.S. Galaxies could not have been formed in the 300 million years, or so, (from the "beginning") that the gravity model supposes. The electric model seems the most likely model to have occurred.

      Delete
    4. The timescale you are quoting is acutally 700 million years. The oldest galaxies observed are 13.2 billion (with a B) years old, so they have been forming pretty close ( from a cosmical timescale, of course) since the birth of the Universe. Now, I ask you, why is this impossible? What data are you citing that makes their formation impossible?

      Secondly, scientific models propose viable, observable, testable solutions to noted problems. EU theory does not make any specific claims, it makes a blanket statement about a lot of known phenomena by trying to attach electric origins to a wide array of events and objects across many scientific disciplines. This is not done in good science: theories explain specific phenomena, in specific terms. Pseudoscience makes more ambiguous, wide-reaching claims. The same way homeopathy, for example, boasts myriad solutions for countless problems.

      Where is the math in EU theory? That's the first question any actual scientist looks at. All good, testable theories have formulas and maths to explain their specific problem. Everything from the formulation of EU theory (essentially it postulates "electricity is really more important than you know, guys!" without making any specific claims) to the outdated, disproved, unreliable data and facts it relies on are dubios and unsound.

      The author of this article simply analyzed specific claims made by this "theory". That's good science and skepticism, i.e. pointing out irregularities in specific claims made by a theory, instead of going out against the whole thing.

      Thirdly, there are no peer-reviewed papers on EU. The peer-reviewed materials they cite on their website are from another discipline altogether and do not support, point to or emphasize the EU's claims. Simply put, there's an entire world of actual, trained scientists out there that know exactly why this haphazard collection of ambiguous claims known as EU theory is bad science.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  2. Hi, like the article, ive been struggling with this theory. I will say the whole sect of people interested in it seem a bit extreme, but, there is a phenomenon in standard model cosmology that i hate. Dark matter. It is an idiotic idea. Clearly there is something here we dont understand. The notion that ghostly particles float through everything and a mystical unknown gravitational particle holds everything together is frankly moronic. Especially when you consider that a force 1000000000 stronger than gravity is being utterly ignored. I'm leaning toward a kind of third option. An idea that hey maybe we can attribute the lack of force necessary to hold galaxies together could be a form of EM. Who knows? Or something else we dont understand etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't want to be mean, but I'm going to be blunt. There's a reason these forces that are orders of magnitude stronger than gravity dont hold sway at cosmological distances. I'll break it down into two parts:

      1: Electric field strength
      Everywhere in the universe that you care to look, whenever you have a positive charge, you also have a negative charge, weather it's in plasmas, condensed matter or degenerate matter. The effect of this is that when you sum the positive charge field and the negative charge field, they cancel out at distances very near the source.

      2: Magnetic field strength
      Magnetic field strength is also a lot more significant at close distances than gravitational fields, but magnetic flux always forms closed loops in space. This means that it effectively does not follow the inverse square law, but, instead, an inverse cube law. This makes magnetic field strength drop off much, much more quickly with distance. I have two large (baseball sized) neodymium magnets that would utterly crush all the bones in your hand if you were to place them on either side of it, but at a distance of a couple of feet from each other there is no perceptible interaction.

      This is why gravity dominates at cosmological distances. It follows the inverse square law and is unrestrained by any form of "antigravity" that would cancel it out.

      'dark matter is an idiotic idea':
      I don't think you understand what "dark matter" is. Its not ghostly magic undiscovered particles (though you may want to read the wikipedia page on the *known* properties of neutrinos). All dark matter is is matter that does not emit detectable radiation. It could (and probably is) a lot of things. Neutrinos, ejected planets and cold stellar remnants and naked black holes are all "dark matter".

      The proponents of the electric universe "theory" seem to be making only half-educated pseudoscientific assertions, and every "explanation" they offer produces a dozen holes that they are too ignorant to see. For example "plasma redshift". That's great, certain kinds of *hot* plasma might produce some kind of red shift effect, so what, are they saying that the entire interstellar medium is made up of hot plasma? Are you f*$#ing serious with this s&$t? The obvious (stupidly obvious) hole here being that we don't observe *any* "hot interstellar plasma" (which is quite easy to detect by the way).

      Delete
    2. A common misconception. Cosmic plasma is not electrically neutral, it is quasi-neutral, which means that it tends towards neutrality. This is why the solar wind is not held by the Sun's gravitation field, and accelerates towards the heliopause, and why it forms the heliospheric current sheet, carrying a billion amps.

      Even the immense gravitational field of a black hole can not hold its surrounding plasma, and forms astrophysical jets (which are actually non-neutral, ie. they are charged particle beams), that can extend 5000 light-years (M87's jet).

      Yes, space plasmas are neutral overall, but quasi-neutraliity means that charge imbalances occur, over light-years, as demonstrated by jets.

      Delete
    3. jets are particles that missed......

      Delete
    4. Rubbish! How far is the distance between two Ions? If one attract the next, and this the next ..........
      The chain that then exists is a HUGE force!


      Bye Bye Dark Matter!

      Delete
  3. Please visit thunderbolts forum and get your mistakes corrected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the most valuable comments here, thank you Jason.
      Is the Autor of the Website connected to Esowatch? Same methodology used here.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, and while you are there, buy the many DVDs and books. That's the one thing EU and Creationism have in common. Pseudo-science, but tons of stuff to sell to the 'true believers'.

      Delete
    3. They monetize their work with voluntary purchases and contributions, while government scientists drink from the public trough.

      Delete
    4. Could you kindly point out the mistakes?

      Thank you

      Delete
  4. In case you're interested, your blog article was mentioned on Thumderbolts. I posted a relatively lengthy reply to your blog entry on that website. Keep in mind that it is very easy for someone outside of the PC/EU community to confuse the fact that there are multiple "electric sun" solar models to choose from, and the issue is still in debate within the EU community. In fact there are at least a half a dozen different solar models under consideration, all which make slightly different predictions, and all of which have various strengths and weaknesses. For a full reply, see the link below:


    http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6369&p=68240#p68240

    Sincerely,

    Michael Mozina
    http;//www.thesurfaceofthesun.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I hope that next time you read an outlandish theory you might take this journey too. You never know what you might learn." - wonderful!

    @Tie: You're conflating Plasma Cosmology (PC) with the Electric Universe (EU). EU proponent try very hard to make you believe they're the same, but as PsyGirl says, they're not. The hundreds of full-time scientists, in the field of plasma astrophysics, would be amused to learn - from you - that they are all "utterly ignoring" the influence of electromagnetism in stars, galaxies, and the universe as a whole. "an idiotic idea", "frankly moronic", "the notion that ghostly particles float through everything" ... odd that you use these words in a comment on a blog called "Neutrino Dreaming". Oh and by the way, "a form of EM" has been tried, as a way to account for galaxy rotation curves, and it fails. But maybe you could get a PhD in plasma physics, and develop your own model?

    @ Jason Taylor: I did, but was banned. It seems that the folk there are vehemently opposed to rational, science-based critiques of EU ideas ...

    Sorry about the above; I had great difficulty getting through the turnstile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nereid, you are totally misrepresenting your ban. As far as I could tell, you were banned because you were being a persisent pain, were given numerous chances to be civil and to actually answer the questions and counter claims being laid against yours, and you refused. You instead decided to engage in the tried and true tactic of bait and switch.. ignoring the comments that made you uncomfortable, and then nitpick away at the one or two things that might be provincial in the discussion. When someone actually DID provide the paper or reference you requested, you dismissed it as not relevant.

      So you were banned because you were a pain, not because you had anything valuable to discuss. There are plenty of people arguing on that forum, and in the EU community in general. It is anything but a closed system.

      Delete
    2. @TimothyB: There must be another Thunderbolts website then; at the Thunderbolts forum, they cannot stand criticism, and routinely ban people who present science-based explanations that are in conflict with what the high priests of the EU say. In Nereid's case, he was banned to prevent him taking part in a public debate on the Electric Sun.

      Delete
  6. http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6370

    FYI, plasma redshift, a very important "prediction' of many PC theories has now been observed in the lab by Chen, et all. More recently, Herman Holushko provided quantified models and C# code to "explain" all the cosmological observations that are typically associated with expansion and acceleration in mainstream theory. There is a "better" empirical solution now to the redshift problem and there is no guarantee anymore that the universe is even expanding. The only observations is "redshift". Everything else is an "interpretation" of that phenomenon.

    I'd also advise you to simply ignore Nereid, the undisputed inquisition queen of banning people and bashing people on the internet with opposing points of view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong:
      C.S.Chen et al. “Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas”.
      There are no cosmological lasers!

      The "plasma redshift" theories are merely tired light theories and so easily debunked: Errors in Tired Light Cosmology (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm).

      The ignorance in stating that the only observation that supports expansion of the universe is redshift is obvious to anyone with any knowledge of cosmology. There are many that you are ignoring. Here are just the CMB related ones: its existence, its temperature, the perfect black blackbody spectrum and the power spectrum.

      What is the evidence for the Big Bang? (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence)

      Delete
    2. You evidently have completely misunderstood the meaning and importance of Chen's findings. A laser isn't required to create plasma redshift, it was simply a "tool" they used in that particular experiment!

      All of the points listed on the website you cited related to 'tired light' have been "debunked" in Herman Holushko's paper, including the broading effect the spectral aging effects.

      (http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v1.pdf)

      The background temperature of the universe has been dealt with in many works on plasma redshift. In fact the background temperature of space was better predicted as the effect of starlight on atoms in space. Early "predictions" of the temperature of space based on the effect of starlight were within a single degree of the accurate number whereas early BB theories were off by more than a whole magnitude!

      BB theory is falling apart at the seams at this point. It's held together with metaphysical bubble gum and supernatural bailing wire. Make no mistake, it will be replace with a pure form of empirical physics, specifically plasma physics. Now that plasma redshift has been observed in the lab, mainstream religion has been laid to waste.

      Delete
    3. The problem is that Herman Holushk is a well known crank with no expertise in astronomy. Citing a pre-print from him on an obscure site is quite dumb.
      Ned Wright is an actual astronomer who cites real scientific, published papers.

      You cannot even understand a crank's pre-print!
      He does not even look at:
      "There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work."
      or
      "The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences."
      or
      "The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test."

      Redshift in laser-induced plasma is a well known phenomena due to the Stark effect:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_effect
      "The Stark effect is the shifting and splitting of spectral lines of atoms and molecules due to presence of an external static electric field."

      A bit of ignorance from you:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cosmic_microwave_background_astronomy
      Thermal (non-microwave background) temperature predictions started in 1896 and have nothing to do with the CMBR.
      Microwave background radiation predictions started in 1946 and had a wide range of values beacuse it depended on cosmological parameters that changed a lot, e.g. "1946 - George Gamow calculates a temperature 50 K assuming a 3-billion year old Universe".

      Where are the EU predictions of the CMBR temperature in that list?

      What you ignore is that the temperature is the least significant part of the CMBR observations. There is also the perfect black body spectrum which no EU theory has reproduced.
      A couple of invalid papers attributed to "plasma cosmology" do have black body spectra but plasma cosmology does not exist!
      http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8381022#post8381022

      BB theory is a well established theory with strong evidence for it. What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence

      Delete
    4. "BB theory is falling apart at the seams at this point. It's held together with metaphysical bubble gum and supernatural bailing wire. Make no mistake, it will be replace with a pure form of empirical physics, specifically plasma physics. Now that plasma redshift has been observed in the lab, mainstream religion has been laid to waste."

      The fact that you postulate the falling apart of Big Bang Cosmology sort of immediately points out how disconnected from modern astronomy you are.

      From its earliest days till this very minute, the evidence has been mounting up to support BB cosmology. It's not some postulate that astronomers have been trying to prop up with straw arguments and bad science and wishful thinking, it's simply a robust model that has proven itself time and time again.

      Only someone utterly unaware of modern astronomy and astrophysics, with access only to crank pseudoscience "facts" would even claim such a preposterous lie. You claim EU is "empirical physics" when most of its claims and explanations are empirically debunked and you weigh that thin air against the unfailing robustness of an empirically proven BB model?

      Are you an astronomer or astrophysicist? I kid, you obviously are not. How can you make such claims then? Speak to an actual astronomer. Read astronomy and astrophysics literature and journals. Do something to educate yourself with actual, credible science.

      I can't help but be utterly confused by equating some imagined EU victory over classical cosmology as the demise of religion when EU/PC theories are very much like religions, insurmountable beliefs held even against overwhelming empirical evidence.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  7. @Jason Taylor: As Nereid stated, thunderbolts has a policy where they ban people without any stated reason. Judging by the fact that I was banned at the time that I was asking questions about their ideas, that seems to be their reason, i.e. that they treat pc (and maybe even EU) as a religion, not a science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nereid is one of the worst offenders on the internet in terms of banning people that she disagrees with. She's banned pretty much every EU proponent on the internet from somewhere that she moderates. It's therefore hardly surprising that she's not welcome at Thunderbolts.

      Keep in mind that EU theory is based upon pure empirical lab tested plasma physics, not invisible sky deities like mainstream "religion'.

      Delete
    2. Keep in mind that BB theory is based on pure empirical lab tested physics, pure empirical out of lab (Ask NASA!) tested physics and matches the observations.

      EU theory is based on the speculations and badly applied physics of a few people. Some of these peple are quite ignorant. Since you cited Thunderbolts:
      David Talbott http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Talbott
      "David N. Talbott (born 1942) is an American author and inveterate promoter of neo-Velikovskian ideas. Inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky, he proposes a “Polar Configuration”[1] involving the five planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars, Earth, in order, and its influence on the human mythology"
      :-(

      At least Wallace Thornhill is a physicist. It is a pity that he has a record of practically lying to his readers, especially about the Deep Impact mission and his fantasy that comets are asteroids!
      My posts on the JREF forum about this:
      The Electric Comet theory
      http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6947849#post6947849
      The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions
      (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6949157#post6949157)

      Delete
    3. Your statements are all false. BB theory is based on three different forms of metaphysical, invisible sky entities, all of which are completely impotent in labs on Earth. Only 4 percent of mainstream theory is based on empirical physics. 96 percent of big bang theory fails to show up in any experiment in any labs on Earth, including inflation, dark energy and the ever popular SUSY particle that never shows up in any experiments.

      I guess you'll just continue to attack individuals since you clearly know nothing at all about EU theory. Worse yet, you misrepresent standard theory as empirical physics, when in fact it's an "act of faith" that is band-aided together with ad hoc gap fillers galore. Every single one of those metaphysical gap fillers are only needed in *one* otherwise falsified cosmology theory. They all fail to show up in the lab. That isn't empirical physics, that a "religion".

      Delete
    4. You are wrong: BB theory is based on scientific observations rather than any "metaphysical, invisible sky entities".
      The demand that all observations be tested in labs is insane since it leads to little things like stars (and galaxies and galaxy clusters and the entire universe!) do not exist because they have not been seen in a lab.

      I know about EU theory. It is nonsense.
      The fact is that David Talbott has little knowldege of science and is an advocate of debunked crackpot ideas.
      The fact is that Wallace Thornhill has some knowldege of science but has lied to his readers, especially about the Deep Impact mission and his fantasy that comets are asteroids.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. All the "evidence" provided to debunk provided EU evidenced by the people posting here have been ad hominem attacks against the credibility of the EU proponents. Cat refute the evidence, make them all believe the purveyor of the evidence is evil and a liar, then say, oh they sell thing on the site so thats what its about. And never consider that mainstream physics have an infinite amount of money to lie for. A lot of the falsification evidence of bb cosmology provided by EU proponents came from shoestring budgets, a lot of times out of their own pockets. If they had a couple of billion that they could build space toys with, and huge experiments. hey could prove this way beyond the proof of bb in no time. considering that the evidence they have gathered already does a pretty good job of falsifying BBC

      Delete
  8. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html

    Its your math not the EU's, so why you putting them down? Last I checked science said E=mc^2. Just what do you think that great man was trying to figure out when he published his paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"????? He no more understood the gravitational force than you do, which is why he was unsatisfied with his theory until the day he died. You use the electrical force to bind the atom, then leave it out in your galactic models. And to this day you wonder why you cant make a unified theory to combine the two models. Put the electro back into electromagnetic please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You need to do a bit of research into electromagnetism.
      Astronomers hardly ever leave the electro out of elecromagnetism because of the simple fcat that measuring a magnetic field usually means that you have also measured the elecctric field. That is why the field of electromagnetism exists!
      I say usually beacuse this does not apply when relativistic effects are important.

      Astronomers leave out the electrical force in galaxy models because they include the magnetic force (magnetic fields). And many models ignore EM because astronomers know about plasma physics which the EU people have no idea about. Plasmas are quasi-neutral which means that they have a scale (the Debye length) beyond which EM effects cancel out. This is 10 metres for the interstellar medium - a light year is ~10 trillion kilometres!

      You also need to learn some history. Einstein was quite satisfied with his theory (it was QM he had questions about). He also really wanted to unify GR and QM.
      The gravitational force is well understood (ask NASA!).

      Delete
    2. Astronomers leave out the electric field at their own peril. The magnetic fields are only part of the equation, and therefore mainstream astronomers only factor in *part* of the total energy. The cause of coronal loop heating is the resistance of current that flows through the coronal loops. Likewise a solar flare is an "electrical discharge" event. It's not caused by 'magnetic reconnection'. Hannes Alfven, the author of MHD theory, called MR theory "pseudoscience".

      Of course that recent finding of slow solar convection speeds in SDO data utterly destroys mainstream solar theory anyway.

      Delete
    3. Astronomers know when to leave the electro out, e.g. when it is determined ny the magneto part (in all non-relativistic situations!).

      You remain ignorant of the fact that plasmas conduct. Thus the cause of coronal loop heating cannot be resistance (there are few curents, very litle resistance). Equally in is insane to think that a solar flare is an "electrical discharge" event.

      Hannes Alfven called MR theory "pseudoscience" in a speech in 1986! It is stupid to think that he showed the magnetic reconnection does not exist. There is no argument today anout MR existsing beacuse it has been observed many times and experiments are done on it all of the time.

      Of course that recent finding of slow solar convection speeds in SDO data utterly destroys any PC/UE solar theory beacuse they have no predictions for them!

      Of course that recent finding of slow solar convection speeds in SDO data means that the mainstream theory which actually predicts convenction currents will be modified (like scientific theories are) in account for the observations.

      Delete
    4. Friend will you please pick up a plasma physics book? You have got so many things incorrect, its not even funny. Hans Alfven, the guy who invented MagnetoHydroDynamics, said Magnetic Reconnection was 'pseudo science'. This guy knew what he was talking about. There is a finite resistance in all plasmas, end of story. Period. Full Stop. The idea that the Debye Length cancels out electrical effects is pure conjecture, and is not supported by the models, evidence, or even by the guy who invented the discipline they are working with. There is no plasma where the curl of F is zero. Full Stop. Got it? Thats plasma physics 101, mate. Plasmas do not behave the way Astrophysicists say they do. They behave the way Hans Alfven, the father of plasma physics, and Irving Langmuir, the person who coined the term 'plasma', describe it. These two guys spent their lives working with plasma. We should take heed of their work, and stop discarding it when their real world, experimental results don't fit with theory from some other discipline.

      Delete
    5. I point out that in the Wikipedia article, they reference Hans Alfven talking about how the Debye effect creates double layers in plasmas, and that their existence in cosmic plasmas has heretofore not been generally understood. What that means is that the Debye length does not apply longitudinally in filamentary structures, but radially, and is the very effect that creates the double layers that perform charge isolation that allows long filaments to exist and conduct current in the first place. The idea that the Debya radius can be applied asymptotically to the sun is pure theory, as yet unproven, and would be completely nullified if it did turn out the Sun was receiving current flow from outside the solar system, or that it was a plasmoid or plasmoid like body encased in a CFDL, in which case the argument becomes moot.

      The point I am trying to make is that this is not settled. Not by a long shot.

      Delete
  9. Let's see what is really happening in space.

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-372
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12/08/voyager-1-updates-solar-electron-flux/

    NASA's report sure doesn't sound like an electrically neutral space to me. Probably why spacecraft immediately begin building up charge as soon as they enter this so called neutral space. And while you are at it redo your mass calculations so we can get rid of that fiary dust dark matter too.

    http://www.space.com/5348-view-universe-suddenly-bright.html
    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2287

    But don't dis-pare, even more new data is on the way:
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/news/electric-atmosphere.html

    Oh yah, you should worry, since every new discovery since the space age has shown how wrong your theories are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You comment about NASA's report sonds like repeating total ignorance from the Thunderbolts web site since space has bever been considered to be electrically neutral. That plasmas like the solar wind are electrically quasi-neutral has been known for decades.

      The mass calculations have been redone many times since 1940 and they all agree that dark matter exists. The 2 press releases you link to have no effect on these calculations because they use the orbital motion of their stars.
      http://www.astronomynotes.com/galaxy/s8.htm
      So most of the mass of the Milky Way is still dark matter.

      But don't despair! Astronomers have been studying the Van Allen belts for decades and are going to study them even more!
      http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/news/electric-atmosphere.html
      A pity that there is no EU theory for the Van Allen belts.

      Oh yah, you should worry, since every new discovery since the space age has shown how wrong the EU theory is.

      Delete
    2. NASA treats solar wind as "quasi-neutral", whereas Birkeland understood that the sun is a cathode with respect to space. With his cathode sun model, Birkeland predicted both types of particles would be present in the solar wind.

      Interestingly enough, standard solar theory is currently taking a major beating in SDO images and data, but Birkeland's cathode solar model is doing quite nicely to explain solar atmospheric events since Birkeland's power source was never dependent upon convection in the first place.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/weak-solar-convection-approximately-100-times-slower-than-scientists-had-previously-projected/

      It's really a pity that the mainstream lost their most important power source as it relates to explaining solar atmospheric activity. :) What will they do now??????? :)

      Delete
    3. You are wrong: no one treats solar wind as "quasi-neutral". The solar wind is measured to be electrically neutral (each positive ion has a negative ion). Like all plasmas, the solar wind is quasi-neutral, i.e. has a scale above which it acts as a neutral gas (EM effects can be neglected) - the Debye length for the solar wind is 10 meters.

      Your statement about Birkeland is wrong. He did not have a solar model that could predict anything about the Sun. He did not have a solar model that included convection becuase all he had was the analogy of imnages from his bradd balls to solar activity.

      Oh dear - you mentioned Birkeland's power source for the Sun! This is the decay of radioactive elements (radium, thorum, uranium) - totally impossible!

      It's really a pity that you cannot understand that the mainstream theory does not depend on the speed of convection to explain that heat is convected from inside the Sun out to the photosphere (where radiation takes over). :)
      What will you misunderstand next?????? :)

      Delete
    4. The Debye length for the solar wind is 10 meters, so under some circumstances, it can be treated as electrical neutral for scales above this.

      This approximation clearly fails, as is evidenced by (a) the heliospheric current sheet, the largest coherence structure in the solar system, (b) astrophysical jets which may extend 5000+ light-years.

      Delete
    5. The Debye length, however, does not apply to the solar wind if it is, in fact, a filamentary plasma or plasma like current and not a 'stream of charged particles'. And observations are showing that this is true, over and over again.

      Delete
  10. @Michael Mozina: PsyGirl posts five specific arguments advanced by electric universe theorists, concerning the Sun, and you do a Gish Gallop! I checked TB, and found nothing which addresses what PsyGirl wrote (about these five).

    Why is that?

    @Steven White: what you wrote is a classic logical fallacy, called 'false dichotomy'. In a nutshell, "You are wrong!" does not, logically, mean "I am right!" Nothing in your comment seems to address any of the five arguments PsyGirl examined.

    Why is that?

    Finally, from the original blog entry: "The “electric universe” has no single paper subject to peer review about its ideas." The lack of any refutation of that statement - by Jason Taylor, Michael Mozina, or Steven White - speaks volumes, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peer Review would require a peer structure that was amenable to reviewing your work. Not the case with Plasma Cosmology, at this point. Not for lack of trying.. Halton Arp, A. Peratt, D. Scott (all PhD holders) have all published papers, but journals like Nature or JOA won't review them. Why? Certainly not because they lack merit. It is because the culture of science is not what people claim it to be. It is top down, and authoritarian. Go too far off the beaten path, and you get slapped.

      So, they have gone the other way. Create interest, attract skill, work on the theories and the organs of support, and build a base. It's the only way to truly dissent in science, since real dissent is always treated as pseudoscience, even if it is well researched and there is mountains of evidence to back it up.. like the EU model.

      Delete
    2. "... but journals like [] JOA won't review them." Huh? What journal is that?

      "Certainly not because they lack merit." Well, as all of them have managed to get papers published elsewhere, it's quite straight-forward to tell if they have (or lack) merit, isn't it? Care to cite just one such meritorious paper?

      "Not the case with Plasma Cosmology ..." Didn't PsyGirl go out of her way to make a distinction between PC and EU? There's nothing particularly unscientific about PC - after all, plenty of PC-based papers have been published - but EU is crank/pseudo-science. Goodness, the EU can't even explain the Sun's observed energy output (in light and neutrinos), quantitatively!

      Delete
  11. I already explained to PsyGirl that her criticisms only apply to *one* solar model and there are several to choose from. In fact however, not a single one of her criticisms actually applies to the cathode solar model that I prefer and that is described on my website, nor does it apply to Alfven's "electric sun" model.

    I would tend to believe that unlike Birkeland's cathode sun, Alfven's solar model would tend to be falsified by the same slow convection process that may just falsify mainstream theory. I'll have to wait with baited breath to see if the mainstream confirms that finding of a very slow convection process in SDO data. That would pretty much destroy standard solar theory.

    Her basic problem is she assumes only one 'electric sun' model is kicked around in EU/PC theory, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Birkeland's "electric/cathode sun" model came long before Juergen's model and even Alfven's (relatively standard) solar model predates the model that Juergen's proposed.

    Your statements about a lack of peer reviewed material on this topic is laughable. Even James Dungey equated 'reconnection' with electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, as did Bruce and many others. Your statements are easily demonstrated to be false.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/906760626772561u/

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Michael Mozina: "I already explained to PsyGirl that her criticisms only apply to *one* solar model and there are several to choose from."

    Easy enough to check; let's do it for a generalised version of PsyGirl's first point, i.e. let's start with all published Electric Universe solar models, and look at how well each explains - quantitatively - the observed neutrino flux.

    As far as I know, there are no Electric Universe solar models published in peer-reviewed journals, so that leaves internet blogs and books. Perhaps you would be kind enough to point readers to material which a) describes an Electric Universe solar model in a manner that is able to be independently verified (objectively), and b) presents a quantitative account of the expected neutrino flux (an account which is also objective, and can be independently verified)?

    "Your statements about a lack of peer reviewed material on this topic is laughable" To quote phyllotaxis, "Please answer specific scientific assertions- no opinion, ad hominem, and or side talk." You cited just one paper, The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass, by Manuel, Kamat, and Mozina. A paper whose key proposal is that the Sun contains a neutron star, which is the source of its energy. Odd, then, that the electric universe theorists Scott, Smith, Talbott, and Thornhill are on record as strongly rejecting that paper (they state that it's inconsistent with Electric Universe theory; as indeed are all such papers by Manuel), and the existence of neutron stars (and nuclear degenerate matter in general), wouldn't you say?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Alfven's "electric sun" model was based on a standard solar model in terms of the energy source, both internally, and externally. Alfven was also turning convection energy into electrical current in the solar atmosphere. It did allow for electrical interactions with the heliosphere. In terms of the neutrino predictions of that particular "electric sun" model, Alfven's model would be identical to standard theory. I don't recall him ever bothering to make any "unique" predictions related to the core or a solar power source because it relied upon the standard model.

    Birkeland also assumed that the sun was internally powered. He personally suggested that a "transmutation of elements" took place in the core and provided power to the cathode. A cathode sun does not need to deviate in any way from the standard model in terms of neutrino outputs, in fact it should not.

    Only Juergen's model relies upon an external power source to explain the total energy output of the sun, and therefore it's the only solar model that *might* make unique neutrino predictions, but even that isn't necessarily a 'given'.

    Degenerate matter isn't necessarily incompatible with electric sun theories. In fact, a rapidly rotating neutron core with a powerful magnetic field around it, would necessarily induce current in surrounding plasmas. Everyone in the EU community has a "preferred" solar model that they personally like best, but everyone in the EU community also understands that there are several "electric sun" models to choose from, all with relative strengths and weaknesses.

    For instance, Alfven's 'electric sun' model is almost as dependent upon high speed convection to explain coronal loop behaviors as standard theory. It's not quite that simple in Alfven's electric sun model however. Because the sun electrically interacts with the heliosphere in Alfven's model, it's not altogether clear that slow convection would deal a "death blow" to his "preferred" solar theory. Slow convection would be a death blow to standard theory however, and if shown to be true, it would be extremely unlikely that mass separation does not occur inside the sun.

    ReplyDelete
  14. One more point Nereid.....

    You keep making such a "big deal" about mainstream solar predictions, but you're so fast to overlook the failures and the shortcomings of those very same quantified predictions. For instance, solar convection speeds are well 'predicted' in mainstream solar theory, and mainstream gas model theory relies heavily upon high speed convection to explain all solar atmospheric activity. Those predictions were just falsified by new SDO observations however. Now what did you intend to do about that glaring failure? Are you simply going to ignore that small problem with your "predictions"? Did you intend to try to sweep it under the carpet?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/weak-solar-convection-approximately-100-times-slower-than-scientists-had-previously-projected/

    Ooops? Your favorite solar theory turns out to make lots of predictions alright, but those convection speed predictions are now highly suspect. When did you intend to address that issue?

    Birkeland's cathode sun isn't dependent upon convection to explain any of the predictions that Birkeland made, including his predictions of high speed solar wind composed of both types of particles, discharges in the atmosphere, "jets", cathode rays, etc. All of his ideas work to explain solar atmospheric behaviors just fine with or without fast convection. Birkeland's model is in no way threatened by an observation of slow convection, but standard theory is devastated and falsified by such an observation.

    You're oh so impressed with quantified predictions, yet oh so disinterested the failures of those same quantified predictions. Why is that?

    You'll also note that not only did the mainstream lose it's ability to explain solar atmospheric energy releases with that observation of slow convection, it lost it's ability to keep heavy elements like Iron and Nickel and Lead from sinking to the core and thereby snuffing out fusion altogether.

    http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=2100&image_no=OT0003

    Most importantly however, you keep ignoring the actual neutrino images themselves. They don't show images of a compact energy release that occurs *only* in the core sun. Quite the opposite. They would seem to suggest that the sun emits neutrinos from all around the sun, including from it's atmosphere. Such a 'non concentrated' neutrino release *heavily* favors an electric sun model, because such models *predict* neutrino releases in coronal loop activity due to hydrogen and CNO fusion processes that occur inside of coronal loop "Bennett Pinches". Several electric sun models predict that fusion occurs all throughout the sun, not simply in the core.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

    Those very same neutrino observations that PsyGirl is talking about, poke gigantic holes in mainstream claims about fusion, and neutrino releases being limited to processes in the core of the sun. The limited resolution neutrino images that we have put together so far, show that just the opposite is likely to be true. Not only are the neutrino emissions not limited to a small area near the core, they light up the solar atmosphere like a Christmas tree.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Michael Mozina: Let's see if I have understood you ...

    me: "Perhaps you would be kind enough to point readers to material which a) describes an Electric Universe solar model in a manner that is able to be independently verified (objectively), and b) presents a quantitative account of the expected neutrino flux (an account which is also objective, and can be independently verified)?""
    you: []

    No "point readers to material", of any kind. Instead, just lots and lots (and lots) of your own words.

    Again, to quote phyllotaxis, "Please answer specific scientific assertions- no opinion, ad hominem, and or side talk."

    Nereid

    ReplyDelete
  16. http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=2100&image_no=OT0003
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

    Apparently you missed the second response entirely where I explained to you that not only does an electric sun model explain the correct neutrino output, it also explains the correct *location* of the various neutrino counts. They don't all come from the core. I provided published work to explain why neutrinos are emitted from coronal loops. Based on the early neutrino images, many of the neutrinos come from the solar atmosphere *as predicted* in electric sun theory. The fact you simply ignored the published material that you didn't care to deal with, says volumes. The neutrino emission patterns favor EU solar models, and they ultimately destroy standard theory. In standard theory the neutrinos emissions should be concentrated exclusively in the core of the sun, whereas the actual images show that neutrino emissions come from the entire sun, and also from the atmosphere around the sun. The prediction of the location of neutrino emissions is unique in EU theory and therefore it's worth writing about. The prediction of neutrinos counts in *most* (2 of 3 for sure) is identical to standard theory and therefore isn't of much interest to EU authors.

    Only one EU solar model would *not necessarily* need to match standard neutrino counts, whereas two of them predict exactly the same neutrino counts, therefore nobody has bothered to calculate it separately. What EU proponents have bothered to predict separately are the *locations* of neutrino emissions, because EU theory makes very unique and testable predictions in terms of location of such emissions, but not all EU solar models make unique predictions related to the total neutrino count.

    I certainly noticed how you simply dodged all that SDO slow convection data that blows standard theory out of the water. You also ignored the location of emission argument entirely. Nice dodge. The fact you won't even touch the neutrino emission location issue with a 10 foot pole says volumes Nereid. Not only are your solar theories falling apart, plasma redshift has been confirmed in the lab. The "dark ages" of astronomy are drawing to a close Nereid, but you're destined to be the last person to finally figure that out. :) I'll bet a few "flat Earthers" were quite proud to defend a flat Earth theory too. :)

    Wake up and smell the coffee Nereid, we live inside an electric universe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Michael Mozina: "I certainly noticed how you simply dodged all that SDO slow convection data that ..." Allow me to clarify something.

      Here's what I wrote earlier: "Easy enough to check; let's do it for a generalised version of PsyGirl's first point, i.e. let's start with all published Electric Universe solar models, and look at how well each explains - quantitatively - the observed neutrino flux.

      ...

      Perhaps you would be kind enough to point readers to material which a) describes an Electric Universe solar model in a manner that is able to be independently verified (objectively), and b) presents a quantitative account of the expected neutrino flux (an account which is also objective, and can be independently verified)?
      "

      When this first point is done, then I'll move on to the next one. And the focus will remain on published electric universe material that provides a quantitative explanation of a) what to expect by application of electric universe theory, and b) comparison with published observational and experimental results.

      And please, let's keep phyllotaxis' request in mind, "Please answer specific scientific assertions- no opinion, ad hominem, and or side talk." OK with you?

      Nereid

      Delete
    2. @Michael Mozina: It seems the link was OK after all, just resting! The caption reads "View of the sun as seen in neutrinos. (Credit: Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, Tokyo)"

      http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=2100&image_no=OT0003

      "Apparently you missed the second response entirely where I explained to you that not only does an electric sun model explain the correct neutrino output, it also explains the correct *location* of the various neutrino counts. They don't all come from the core. I provided published work to explain why neutrinos are emitted from coronal loops. Based on the early neutrino images, many of the neutrinos come from the solar atmosphere *as predicted* in electric sun theory."

      I really don't know what you mean; could you clarify please?

      For example, in neither of the Manuel et al. documents could I find an explanation of the "*location* of the various neutrino counts", much less anything on why such an explanation is "correct".

      In any case, I checked "Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, Tokyo" for material relevant to that image, and found this paper (among other material): Solar neutrino measurements in Super-Kamiokande-II (here's a link to the arxiv preprint: http://xxx.tau.ac.il/abs/0803.4312 ). I do not actually know, but I guess the image you posted is derived from the same data displayed in Figure 11 of that Super-Kamiokande collaboration paper; if so, then I confess to being quite puzzled. You see, your description doesn't match what's in that paper.

      Perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain?

      Nereid

      Delete
    3. I tried to explain to you (via published material) that one unique neutrino "prediction" of all three electric sun models relates to the *location* of neutrino emissions. All three electric sun models predict that at least some of the neutrinos emissions occur as a result of coronal loop (electrical discharge) activity in the solar atmosphere. I don't believe (I could be mistaken) that standard solar theory makes no such predictions related to coronal loop activity. If that is true (you tell me), then that seems like one possible "test" we could use to differentiate between gas model solar theory and electric sun theory. While two of three EU solar models would necessarily need to predict the same total neutrino output, and even the third EU solar model "could" be made to match standard neutrino counts (in theory), all three EU models would require that some portion of neutrino emissions come from the solar atmosphere. Juergen's model would probably require far more of them would come from the atmosphere, whereas Birkelands model and Alfven's model would expect atmospheric neutrinos to be a relatively minor contribution to the total output.

      If you're looking for a "logical" way to "test" various theories based on neutrino "predictions", the 'best' way would be to look at and isolate the emission location of neutrinos. If the vast majority (but not all of them) are all concentrated in the core, it would favor Alfven's model and/or Birkeland's model. If the were all concentrated in the core, it would tend to favor standard theory. If they were mostly located in the solar atmosphere, it would tend to favor Juergen's model.

      Delete
    4. @Michael Mozina: "All three electric sun models predict that at least some of the neutrinos emissions occur as a result of coronal loop (electrical discharge) activity in the solar atmosphere." With the exception of your own ideas, there is nothing anyone can say about the veracity of this statement ... because you have provided no references (objective, independently verifiable) to any such models. All any reader has is your own words, as posted here.

      And, as I said in another comment, at least two "electric sun" models - Thornhill's "Solar Resistor" and Scott's "Solar Capacitor" - say nothing about the expected neutrino flux (and Scott is, seemingly, emphatic that the observed neutrino flux cannot be used to say anything about the Sun, period).

      "all three EU models would require that some portion of neutrino emissions come from the solar atmosphere" Perhaps they do; but where can one independently verify your statement? And what limits - *quantitative* limits - do the models place on "some"? One electron anti-neutrino per square centimetre per century? 10^52 tau neutrinos per square metre per nanosecond?

      Nereid

      Delete
    5. @ Michael, how is it fair to allow for several possible EU sun models but you restrict the standard models to one model w/o any possibility of variance, that's like admitting you're wrong
      (but hey i have several guesses, one might be right, may be) and saying the standard model may also be wrong but at least they may have only gotten one thing wrong, which they observed, and then began to change the model accordingly, instead of presenting several inconsistent, contradictory theories as being possible and referring to specifics from each to argue the plausibility of your overall theory that doesn't actually exist, it is several theories that you admit cannot all be correct, when you come up with an actually theory (not several that you pick and choose details from) then you may have an argument, until then all you're doing is basically saying "nu uh"

      Delete
  17. @Michael Mozina: I asked you - or anyone else - to point me (actually all readers of these comments) to "material which
    a) describes an Electric Universe solar model in a manner that is able to be independently verified (objectively), and
    b) presents a quantitative account of the expected neutrino flux (an account which is also objective, and can be independently verified)
    "

    So far you have provided links to two documents by O. Manuel (you are listed as an author on both: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633 and http://www.springerlink.com/content/906760626772561u/ ) and one broken link ( http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=2100&image_no=OT000 ).

    Neither of the two documents you referenced presents a quantitative account of the expected neutrino flux from the Sun.

    But let's clarify that a bit; let's expand "neutrino flux" to the flux of all neutrino types, and the flux in well-defined energy bands (e.g. those associated with particular nuclear reactions). And for avoidance of doubt, the fluxes should be quantitative.

    Of course, it's possible that missed the part, or parts, in those two documents where you (and your co-authors) presented a (quantitative) derivation of the expected (quantitative) neutrino fluxes. If so, would you be so kind as to quote that, directly from the documents?

    Finally, you wrote "I already explained to PsyGirl that her criticisms only apply to *one* solar model and there are several to choose from", yet so far you've referenced material relating to only one (I'll leave aside, for now, the question of whether that's an electric universe solar model or not).

    Nereid

    ReplyDelete
  18. I have explained to both you, and to PsyGirl, that there are several errors in her arguments, and neither one of you has bothered to deal with those error, or with mainstream solar convection problems found in SDO data.

    Apparently her entire argument is predicated upon a misunderstanding of basic physics, and an appalling lack of historical knowledge. For instance:

    "Maxwell’s theory of acceleration, however, talks about a time variable field, not a fixed one, and what’s more the solar wind contains both positive and negatively charged ions (protons and electrons mainly). An electric sun would be positively charged and all the negatively charged electrons would be attached to it – not be pushed out from the Sun on a solar wind. This fact proves the Sun is not electric."

    Kristian Birkeland predicted and physically demonstrated that both types of charged particles would come from a cathode sun in high speed solar wind events. In fact his cathode solar model is the *only* solar model that actually "predicted" that behavior based on empirical laboratory tests that were done in the early 1900's. Her entire argument is based on an incredible lack of knowledge of Birkeland's work on 'electric/cathode' solar models, and an outright misunderstanding of basic physics.

    I've also carefully explained to you both, that two of the most popular three "electric sun" models (Birkeland and Alfven's models) are *internally*, not externally powered, and would therefore have to match conventional neutrino calculations. In Alfven's case in particular, the number would *necessarily* need to match (exactly) the mainstream neutrino number because it is based on the mainstream solar theory with a few EM add-on's as it relates to atmospheric activity.

    Neither one of you wants to address that slow convection process we recently observed in SDO data. Instead you would rather fixate on *one* of three possible 'electric sun' models that *might* (wouldn't necessarily have to) deviate from a typical neutrino estimate, Juergen's model. To my knowledge however, nobody in the PC/EU community even felt it warranted a separate calculation all on it's own. While Alfven predicted many solar atmospheric behaviors based on circuit theory, he never bothered (to my knowledge) to offer a neutrino calculation because in his mind that number could not deviate from gas model solar theory to begin with, and it therefore wasn't worth his time.

    Birkeland's cathode sun model would necessarily be internally powered since Birkeland claimed that the energy release would occur inside the sun as a result of the "transmutation of elements". His model could therefore *not* deviate greatly in terms of the total neutrino output. Where it *could* deviate is "location, location, location" in terms of the neutrino release points. In terms of total count however, it could not deviate very much from standard theory.

    Does PhyGirl (or yourself) care to "fess up" to some of the aforementioned errors in her presentation, or are you just intending to go around in circles?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops, my comment didn't show; trying again ...


      @Michael Mozina: re "I've also carefully explained to you both, that two of the most popular three "electric sun" models (Birkeland and Alfven's models) are *internally*, not externally powered, and would therefore have to match conventional neutrino calculations". Hannes Alfven died in 1995; Kristian Birkeland in 1917. As far as I know, the key breakthrough solar neutrino observations were reported in 2002 ("Direct Evidence for Neutrino Flavor Transformation from Neutral-Current Interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory" http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v89/i1/e011301 ).

      It would therefore follow, would it not, that a description of how either Birkeland's or Alfven's "electric sun" model explains the observed neutrino flux would have to be published long after they were dead? I've asked you for references to material which contains such explanations, but, so far, you've provided nothing.

      Your first comment here introduced material elsewhere; a key part of that - IMHO - is this: "I have a good friend that is quite hostile to all things EU. We were talking about the sciences last night and he sent me this refutation to make his argument. [link to this blog entry] If we are ever to sway opponents, we must answer criticisms used to dismiss the work we advocate." It seems to me, even though I have no idea who phyllotaxis' good friend is, that your inability to provide any directly relevant material to PsyGirl's very first point (about neutrinos) suggests that if that friend were reading these comments today, she would find her opinions about "electric universe theories" confirmed (at least as they relate to solar neutrinos).

      Nereid

      Delete
    2. Second part of missing comment ...


      @everyone else: nearly two months' ago, Jason Taylor made a suggestion about where you can find material that Michael Mozina seems unable to locate. Now that website is huge, and has essentially no quantitative material, so if you're looking for a concise *quantitative* presentation of other "electric sun" models, I recommend this page ("Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'"):
      http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html
      For the Thornhill "electric sun" (a.k.a. "Solar Resistor") model, here it is, in material written by Thornhill himself (you'll need to pay US$31 to get it however; why don't EU proponents make it available for free?): "The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars"
      http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isnumber=4287017

      It does not, however, even mention neutrinos, much less attempt to calculate the expected flux.

      Regarding Scott's "electric sun" (a.k.a. "Solar Capacitor") model, you have to buy his book to learn the details (though most of them are available on the site Jason cited). However, in one extraordinary passage, Scott says this: "I do start by stating a simple obvious fact, "There is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel."" He's referring to neutrinos, but an unintended consequence of his astonishing claim is that astronomers can not know anything about the universe (beyond the solar system), ever! After all, they take measurements (of photons) at only one end of a transmission channel, so they cannot use those to reveal changes that have occurred between source (a star, say, or galaxy) and detector at the back end of the telescope.

      So, no quantitative presentation of the expected neutrino flux, for any "electric sun" model (pace MM).

      Nereid

      Delete
    3. Nereid:"It does not, however, even mention neutrinos, much less attempt to calculate the expected flux."

      Then essentially PsyGirl's claims are based entirely upon unpublished cyberspace claims from websites that she apparently selected at random. These were not ideas that she learned from reading actual published materials written by published EU proponents. What does that tell you about the quality of PsyGirl's arguments?

      Lot's of theories *no not* make specific predictions on some topic or another. So? Most modern EU solar models use modern neutrino data to carefully determine how much fusion occurs in and around the sun. I have no idea why anyone cares to go by some randomly selected statements from various websites in cyberspace, unless the express intent was to *misrepresent* the theory in question. It would be akin to me pulling various unpublished website statements about GR to falsify GR theory. The only reason to do such a thing is to intentionally misrepresent the theory in question. From the perspective of an EU proponent, that seems to be PsyGirl's actual intent in fact.

      Go ahead though and keep dodging the data that destroys your beliefs Nereid. You can be the last 'flat earther' for all I care. Your irrational hatred of EU theory, and your need to ban EU proponents on mainstream websites won't save you from scientific progress however. SDO's 16 megapixel resolution was a giant leap forward in technology over SOHO and Trace. SDO shows the effect the loops have of the surface of the photosphere as they rise up and through, and flow back into that surface. The patterns of magnetism on the surface of the photosphere that are caused by the current in the loops, also match up perfectly with the "bright points" seen in 1600A and 1700A, demonstrating a cause/effect link between the loops and the bright areas on that surface.

      http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/sdo/mfield.mp4
      http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/sdo/hmi-171.mp4
      http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/sdo/discharge1600-131.mp4

      The first image shows the magnetic field alignments on the surface of the photosphere using the HMI gear on SDO, overlaid with two iron ion wavelengths, 171A and 193A. What you'll observe is that the surface of the photosphere is black and white only in the areas where the largest loops are located, and those N/S alignments occur right along the trajectory of the loops, exactly as predicted by a subsurface origin of the loops. The second example demonstrates that this alignment occurs in other iron on wavelengths as predicted as well.

      The third image is an SDO HMI continuum (white light) image overlaid with a 171A wavelength. You'll notice that the loops tend to flow right down along the penumbral filaments in this image, at exactly the right angles *if* (and only if) the loops are actually descending down into the photosphere. The orientation of 171 loops with the penumbral filaments is certainly no coincidence, it's directly related the orientation of the penumbral filaments. Again, this image is completely consistent with the transition region/subsurface stratification layer being located far under the photosphere. The alignment of the loops the penumbral filament angles would be meaningless if the loops were located a further 1200KM above the photosphere as LMSAL claims.

      Pretty much every major prediction that I made related to coronal loop activity, based on very limited SOHO resolution imagery, has now been confirmed in 16 megapixel, high cadence, SDO images. Meanwhile that same piece of gear just falsified your pet theory and Alfven's "electric sun" as well.

      Delete
    4. "Most modern EU solar models use modern neutrino data to carefully determine how much fusion occurs in and around the sun"

      They do? What "modern EU solar models" would they be, Michael?

      And where can one obtain a copy of the papers in which those models are presented, in quantitative detail (other than the two papers you have already cited, the ones you are a co-author of)?

      Nereid

      Delete
    5. Michael Mozina: Three pretty images (out of the thousands available!) from light being emitted in the corona.
      * The 171A light comes from Fe IX (iron stripped of 9 electrons) at temperatures between 160,000 and 2,000,000 K!
      * The 193A light comes from Fe XII, i.e. Fe at 500,000 and 2,000,000 K!
      Asserting that these have anything to do with the photosphere is really ignorant because the photosphere has a temperature of ~5700 K.

      You have loops that extend out from the photosphere imaged in various passbands. The bottom arc of the loops show in the "cooler" passbands, the top parts of the loop arc in the "hotter' passbands or even X-rays. Of course they align as LMSAL and basic physics claim!

      And of course there is the silliness of going off on this irrelevant rant when the question is about the neutrino flux predicted by EU solar models!

      Delete
  19. FYI....

    "Electric universe theorists argue that these neutrinos have never been detected, and those inferred by their effects are about half of what would be produced by a fusion reaction in the sun."

    Even this argument is a gross distortion of scientific fact. *Some* (certainly not all) EU theorist have made such arguments but that is certainly not true of *all* EU proponents. Alfven used a standard solar energy source, so he certainly never made any such claims. PsyGirl's whole argument is one giant gross oversimplification of the EU range of beliefs. She's essentially trying to paint every EU solar theory with an over wide brush. AFAIK, that "website criticism' about low neutrino counts comes from a few *outdated* websites in cyberspace, not from any actual published "prediction" that actually predicted fewer neutrinos in an EU solar model. What kind of argument is that?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Michael Mozina: yes, you've said (actually written) this, several times now.

      However, you've provided no evidence to support your words (despite the fact that I've asked you for it, several times now).

      Why is it - apparently - so hard for you to cite primary sources?

      Other than for your own "electric sun" model, of course ... except that neither of the sources you did cite provide anything quantitative (wrt expected neutrino fluxes).

      Yet a few minutes googling and I found Scott's amazing claim (see above)!

      Could it be, perhaps, that there are, in fact, no materials which present derivations of the expected neutrino flux (of all kinds), from the Sun (per any "electric sun" model)?

      Delete
  20. You dodged every key issue again Nereid, just like always. You always ignore and avoid the part of the post, and the evidence that makes you uncomfortable. I guess those measured convection speed failures of mainstream solar theory are scary to you eh?

    As best as I can tell, you two are apparently using *one* guys (unpublished website?)argument about neutrinos, from 10 or more years ago, to speak for and represent the *entire* EU community today, and to attempt to falsify every electric sun model proposed today. How ridiculous can you two get anyway? How long ago was that neutrino material written by Scott anyway, 10 years ago, 15 years ago?

    You're essentially asking for published materials that simply do not exist AFAIK. Separate electric sun neutrino predictions have not been published AFAIK, because most if not all 'electric sun' theories do not necessarily deviate from standard theory on total neutrino output. The neutrino issue is therefore of no great interest to most EU authors and most electric sun theories. Alfven wrote more than 100 published papers, and two books, including several papers on "electric sun" activity. Since he supported a standard fusion power source, neutrinos were never a topic of interest to him personally.

    Most EU proponents prefer to point out areas of *disagreement* with mainstream theory, areas of difference that might be 'tested'. Apparently the neutrino issue was interesting to only one guy (or a handful of individuals) for a limited period of time, many years ago. You're apparently latching on to one guy's unpublished website argument from 15 years ago to attempt to falsify every electric sun model ever proposed by anyone. What ridiculous behavior, but then again, what else would I expect from you?

    Unfortunately however, Alfven's 'electric sun' theory is just as falsifiable as mainstream theory is falsifiable by those slow convection processes we have recently observed. Both his 'electric sun' and mainstream theory can be tossed out if that convection speed data holds up over time.

    Only a mass separated solar model, and only a cathode solar model would survive that observation of slow convection speeds that occur at a walking pace rather than jet speeds as predicted by standard theory. Intriguingly however, a cathode solar model is not dependent upon convection as a power source to explain electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere to start with. It's no skin off Birkeland's nose if convection occur at a walking pace or a snails pace or jet speeds. Birkeland's model still explains high energy solar atmospheric activity, with or without convection.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Michael Mozina: one of my comments did not post (now fixed, see above).

      "How long ago was that neutrino material written by Scott anyway, 10 years ago, 15 years ago?"
      Only three (March, 2009).

      "You're essentially asking for published materials that simply do not exist AFAIK."
      That's what I thought; nice to have your confirmation.

      "Separate electric sun neutrino predictions have not been published AFAIK, because most if not all 'electric sun' theories do not necessarily deviate from standard theory on total neutrino output."

      I'll leave it up to you to have a discussion about that with Scott, Smith, Talbott, and Thornhill (to name just four whose writing seems to contradict you). I recommend you follow Jason Taylor's suggestion. For example, from that website: "The Iron Sun proponents are to be congratulated for their research showing that the Sun does not shine because of nuclear fusion in its core. ... The questions raised are crucial whether or not the proposed model of the Sun is correct."

      "Alfven wrote more than 100 published papers, and two books, including several papers on "electric sun" activity. Since he supported a standard fusion power source, neutrinos were never a topic of interest to him personally."

      He did? And you can cite at least one of those published papers as evidence? In any case, if he did, then he cannot have been writing about an "electric universe" theory-based solar model, can he?

      Nereid

      Delete
    2. "Separate electric sun neutrino predictions have not been published AFAIK, because most if not all 'electric sun' theories do not necessarily deviate from standard theory on total neutrino output. The neutrino issue is therefore of no great interest to most EU authors and most electric sun theories"

      Again, the website Jason Taylor suggested contains an abundance of material which seems to contradict you.

      Consider this, for example: "Nuclear reactions take place on the surface, not in the core, of the Sun, explaining why neutrino numbers vary with the sunspot cycle."

      It's from 2005 - well after the Sudbury results were published - and contains a "prediction" that has subsequently been shown to be inconsistent with the observed neutrino flux (see the paper I referenced earlier, Solar neutrino measurements in Super-Kamiokande-II: "The time-dependent flux measurement of the combined first and second phases coincides with the full period of solar cycle 23 and shows no correlation with solar activity.")

      Nereid

      Delete
    3. "Again, the website Jason Taylor suggested contains an abundance of material which seems to contradict you."

      Who is Jason Taylor and why should I care what he thinks? Did he actually bother to *publish* any material on this topic, or is this another random website claim?

      Delete
    4. Nereid:"I'll leave it up to you to have a discussion about that with Scott, Smith, Talbott, and Thornhill (to name just four whose writing seems to contradict you)."

      There are now several cathode sun proponents that post on Thunderbolts. Apparently the "powers that be" in the EU community aren't as closed minded as you seem to believe.

      "I recommend you follow Jason Taylor's suggestion. For example, from that website: "The Iron Sun proponents are to be congratulated for their research showing that the Sun does not shine because of nuclear fusion in its core. ... The questions raised are crucial whether or not the proposed model of the Sun is correct."

      For the record, the solar model that we proposed would still generate fusion reactions *near/around* (not in) the core. He's technically correct, but then like all EU solar models, fusion is a function of electrical discharge activity. Much of the highest electrical discharge activity would take place directly around, but not inside of the rapidly spinning core of our model. It's still a fusion driven power source that also picks up energy from Neutron decay.

      Delete
    5. @Michael Mozina: Jason Taylor wrote a comment here, on this The Electric Universe Theory Debunked blog entry.

      "like all EU solar models, fusion is a function of electrical discharge activity" That would seem to be consistent with this (from the website Jason Taylor recommended): "The Electric Sun model anticipates the building of heavier atomic nuclei from the protons and neutrons at the foot points of solar flares. But it also expects most nuclear reactions to occur in the tornadic discharges that form solar granulations (where the nuclear kitchen is in full view). In particular, the latter prediction fits the observed anti-correlation between neutrino count and sunspot number. The more sunspots there are, the fewer solar granulations and neutrinos. This unique correlation does not fit any model that proposes an energy source inside the Sun, unrelated to sunspots."

      Do you know where they got "the observed anti-correlation between neutrino count and sunspot number" from? As I pointed out, there seems to be no such correlation.

      "But the Iron Sun model makes the curious claim that energy from neutrons, supposedly repelled from its neutron star core, provides most of the Sun's radiant energy and the protons for the solar wind. The Electric Sun model, on the other hand, says that external electrical energy, supplied from the galaxy, is responsible for producing the radiant output of the Sun, ..." - from the same source. I think, Michael, you need to have a discussion with Scott, Smith, Talbott, and Thornhill.

      Nereid

      Delete
    6. Nereid:Do you know where they got "the observed anti-correlation between neutrino count and sunspot number" from? As I pointed out, there seems to be no such correlation.

      Beats me. I'd expect just the opposite actually. The sun is more active at higher energy wavelengths during the sunspot peak, so I'd expect that increase in atmospheric activity would result in the production of more atmospheric neutrinos, not fewer of them during a sunspot peaks.

      Delete
    7. Nereid:"But the Iron Sun model makes the curious claim that energy from neutrons, supposeded repelled from its neutron star core, provides most of the Sun's radiant energy and the protons for the solar wind. The Electric Sun model, on the other hand, says that external electrical energy, supplied from the galaxy, is responsible for producing the radiant output of the Sun, ..." - from the same source. I think, Michael, you need to have a discussion with Scott, Smith, Talbott, and Thornhill."

      FYI, I believe that is actually difference of opinion between myself and Manuel, and I've had that discussion with Manuel. I believe that the Thunderbolts statement is/was an accurate portrayal of how Manuel explains the "majority" of the energy release of the sun. On the other hand, I tend to think that neutron decay represents only a small fraction of the total energy release around the core, most of which would come from fusion that occurs near and around the rapidly spinning core inside powerful discharge processes. IMO the neutrino oscillation evidence favors my position.

      Delete
    8. MM:"Alfven wrote more than 100 published papers, and two books, including several papers on "electric sun" activity. Since he supported a standard fusion power source, neutrinos were never a topic of interest to him personally."

      Nereid:He did? And you can cite at least one of those published papers as evidence? In any case, if he did, then he cannot have been writing about an "electric universe" theory-based solar model, can he?

      Sure, I'd be happy to provide you with a reference:

      http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/On%20The%20Fimamentary%20Structure%20Of%20The%20Solar%20Corona.pdf

      Of course Alfven can and did write extensively about an electric universe. I thought you told me once that you've already read Cosmic Plasma didn't you?

      http://books.google.com/books/about/Cosmic_Plasma.html?id=ZjwoGlIxvLUC

      Alfven's coronal loop/circuit theories pretty much require a high speed convection process to explain the positive and negative footprints on the surface of the photosphere, and to keep the elements "mixed" in the solar atmosphere. On the other hand, Birkeland's cathode (and current source) is located underneath of the photosphere and it predicts mass separation to occur, so it's actually supported by a slow convection process. Juergen's model would not require nor preclude fast or slow convection AFAIK.

      Delete
    9. One point MM: It was physically impossible for Alfven to write about an "electric universe" because EU did not exist during his lifetime!
      What Alfven did write about was plasma. He had a theory called Plasma Cosmology which is basically debunked (no CMB!).

      Alfven's "coronal loop/circuit theories" is few papers using the standard modeling of plasma processes using a circuit model.

      Citations to the scientific literature for Birkeland having a solar cathode model and that it predicts mass separation to occur?
      Mass separation in the Sun is impossible because turbulance mixes things up.

      Juergen's model is debunked by the simple fact that we detect enough neutrinos from the Sun to explain its energy output from fusion.

      Delete
  21. Ya know......

    Every single one of PsyGirl's claims are apparently based upon *unpublished claims* that she simply pulled at random from various websites in cyberspace. Virtually every single one of the claims that she selected at random *defies* Alfven's electric solar model. Every single one of her claims defies the predictions of Birkeland's cathode sun model. AFAIK, every single one of them also defies *every* electric sun model, *including* a mostly externally powered Juergen's model.

    You're now attempting to shift the burden of proof to me and require me to come up with neutrino numbers that most folks in the EU community do not dispute in the first place AFAIK, and to my knowledge never wrote about in the first place based on a complete lack of interest.

    Evidently your opinions about a Birkeland solar model are based upon writings you found on another EU website you selected virtually at random from the internet. You certainly didn't get any of that bogus nonsense from *my* website.

    About all I can say is thanks from confirming that you personally are not the least bit interested in an 'honest' scientific dialog, one that looks at all the evidence, including the slow convection speeds observed by SDO. About all you seem to be interested in doing is *completely* misrepresenting the *entire* electric universe community based on random statements you pulled off the internet, not from published works.

    In case you are actually interested, I did give you some logical methods to begin "testing" EU solar theories as it relates to the *location, location, location* of neutrino emissions. AFAIK every single EU solar theory predicts that at least some of the neutrino emissions observed from the sun come from the ATMOSPHERE around the sun, not exclusively from the core. Alfven's solar model would expect the fewest atmospheric emissions, Birkeland's would predict a little more, and Juergen's model would require the most atmospheric fusion reactions. Even Juergen's model might generate fusion reactions just *under* the surface of the photosphere, but far above the core. That would however *require* convection of some kind.

    The other point that you keep avoiding like that plague is that SDO confirms about a 1/2 dozen different 'predictions' related to the Birkeland cathode solar model described on my website. That model *does* predict convection by the way, but convection isn't the energy source that produces the coronal loop discharge processes. The speed of convection at various depths is therefore irrelevant to Birkeland's model.

    Not a single one of PsyGirl's criticisms appears to be based upon published materials. Furthermore none of it applies to the 'electric sun' theory described at thesurfaceofthesun.com Not a single one of her objections is valid in *most* electric sun models. Not even Juergen's model *precludes* the possibility of convection. Even that claim seems to be simply a "random" statement that she simply selected from the internet at random, not based upon any recently *published* material.

    FYI, I bothered to publish my theories, and not a single one of PsyGirl's claims accurately represents that particular "electric sun" theory. Birkeland predicted both types of charged particles would come from the sun in high speed solar wind. He "predicted" that powerful electrical discharges would occur in the solar atmosphere. It *predicts* high speed 'jets' near the poles. It *predicts* pretty much every major solar features seen in high energy images of the sun.

    Mainstream theory on the other hand just lost it's single most important power source. In one fell swoop, it also lost all rational methods to explain heavy and light elements staying "mixed together" in the solar atmosphere. Mainstream theory is essentially falsified completely, certainly undermined to the point of terminal illness, by those revelations of slow convection speeds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Michael Mozina: Here's how this got started, per your own first comment here: "I have a good friend that is quite hostile to all things EU. We were talking about the sciences last night and he sent me this refutation to make his argument. [link to this blog] ... I'd like to see your specific, reasoned replies to these criticisms. ... it's important to specifically answer the points made to debunk this work. Please answer specific scientific assertions- no opinion, ad hominem, and or side talk. If we are ever to sway opponents, we must answer criticisms used to dismiss the work we advocate. "

      Should phyllotaxis' friend stumble on this blog and the comments here, how do you think he would respond if asked about your comments (and those of Steven White)?

      "AFAIK every single EU solar theory predicts that at least some of the neutrino emissions observed from the sun come from the ATMOSPHERE around the sun, not exclusively from the core. "

      The Ahmad et al. (2002) paper, "Direct Evidence for Neutrino Flavor Transformation from Neutral-Current Interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory", reports direct observations of a flux of non-electron neutrinos ("3.41-0.45+0.45(stat)-0.45+0.48(syst)×10^6 cm^-2 s^-1").

      What does each "EU solar theory" predict for the flux of non-electron neutrinos from the Sun (whether core, atmosphere, or elsewhere)?

      This is a question which you, in particular, should be able to answer easily for at least one "EU solar theory" (i.e. yours), given that a paper you wrote (and cited in your comments here)explicitly cites Ahmad et al. (2002).

      Nereid

      Delete
    2. Nereid:"Should phyllotaxis' friend stumble on this blog and the comments here, how do you think he would respond if asked about your comments (and those of Steven White)?"

      Hopefully he'd now understand that all of PsyGirl's claims were "made up" from start to finish and they really do not apply to "modern" electric sun models.

      Nereid:"What does each "EU solar theory" predict for the flux of non-electron neutrinos from the Sun (whether core, atmosphere, or elsewhere)?"

      Alfven's model, and the model I published would necessarily require neutrino flavor transformation since the bulk of the energy release comes from fusion that takes place inside coronal loop discharges *throughout* the sun, not just in the atmosphere. AFAIK, the bulk of all energy release in Juergen's model would still come from fusion from coronal loop activity, but the fusion would be concentrated in the outer areas of the sun, and the atmosphere around the sun. Pretty much all three models use fusion as a primary energy release mechanism, so in theory they would all "predict' flavor oscillation.

      AFAIK however, all oscillation have been observed in non electron neutrinos. What has yet to be demonstrated AFAIK, is an electron neutrino observed to be oscillating into a muon or tau neutrino. As I understand it, that is Scott's primary objection to current 'interpretations' about neutrino flavor changes at this point in time. I'm sure any future observations of such transformation would remove his last known objection to the concept of neutrino oscillations.

      Delete
  22. It's time, I think, to return to the origin. Here's what PsyGirl wrote, in the blog entry that all these 50+ comments are on: "Astrophysicists say that stars, including the sun, are powered by nuclear fusion. However electric universe theorists say this is not so. The reasons given are that: 1. we haven’t yet found the neutrinos that must be emitted from such a reaction; ..."

    That "electric universe theorists say this [the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion] is not so" is easy to verify, as I have done, in several comments, by citing several original publications by Scott and Thornhill.

    However, Michael Mozina has disputed this, in several of his comments. He has claimed, for example, that he (and O. Manuel) is an "electric universe theorist", also Hannes Alfven and Kristian Birkeland, and that in models published by these (Manuel and Mozina) or based on these theorists' work (Alfven and Birkeland) the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion (or at least largely so), pace Scott, Smith, Talbott, and Thornhill (abundant evidence to be found in the website referenced by Jason Taylor).

    When challenged to provide independent evidence of this claim - in the form of published material by any "electric universe theorist" - Mozina has been silent (with the exception of two papers by Manuel et al.)

    Worse, Mozina seems confused as to 'the state of play', as exemplified by these comments: "Apparently you missed the second response entirely where I explained to you that not only does an electric sun model explain the correct neutrino output, it also explains the correct *location* of the various neutrino counts. They don't all come from the core. I provided published work to explain why neutrinos are emitted from coronal loops. Based on the early neutrino images, many of the neutrinos come from the solar atmosphere *as predicted* in electric sun theory", "Only one EU solar model would *not necessarily* need to match standard neutrino counts, whereas two of them predict exactly the same neutrino counts, therefore nobody has bothered to calculate it separately", "Then essentially PsyGirl's claims are based entirely upon unpublished cyberspace claims from websites that she apparently selected at random. These were not ideas that she learned from reading actual published materials written by published EU proponents", "Most modern EU solar models use modern neutrino data to carefully determine how much fusion occurs in and around the sun", "You're essentially asking for published materials that simply do not exist AFAIK. Separate electric sun neutrino predictions have not been published AFAIK, because most if not all 'electric sun' theories do not necessarily deviate from standard theory on total neutrino output. The neutrino issue is therefore of no great interest to most EU authors and most electric sun theories", "Pretty much all three models use fusion as a primary energy release mechanism, so in theory they would all "predict' flavor oscillation." (there's more, but you get the idea).

    Q: what published materials can the interested reader refer to, to independently confirm your multiple claims, Michael Mozina?
    A: [] (with the exception of the two Manuel et al. papers)

    The ability to independently verify, in an objective way, scientific claims is one of the core aspects of science, wouldn't you say Michael? Yet, curiously, you have provided nothing that anyone could independently verify, in regard of neutrino emissions (predictions and observations) wrt models and theory (aside from those two papers), have you? And certainly nothing *quantitative* ...

    Nereid

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. as an interested reader that wishes to verify anything Michael says I am also curious, he seems to be picking and choosing arguments from several contradicting theories (including non EU theories) in order to support what ever poorly presented EU model he has in mind, he avoids answering any questions and just says the same thing over and over, decides parts aren't important so he ignores them, makes assumptions about what certain observations mean, which are far fetched at best and require temporary disregard for logic, and then provides no evidence or reasoning to reach his conclusions

      Delete
  23. Nereid:It's time, I think, to return to the origin.

    Sure, let's keep going in circles because you can't and won't deal with that slow convection speed problem in mainstream theory, and PsyGirl's arguments have been exposed as nonsense.

    Nereid: Here's what PsyGirl wrote, in the blog entry that all these 50+ comments are on: "Astrophysicists say that stars, including the sun, are powered by nuclear fusion. However electric universe theorists say this is not so. The reasons given are that: 1. we haven’t yet found the neutrinos that must be emitted from such a reaction; ..."

    There are two obvious fallacies and two basic errors in PsyGirls claims. I have never personally made any such claim. In fact, she never produced a single *published* paper to support that wild claim, not even a quantified prediction from *any* EU proponent to support her claim. Evidently she simply got that idea from some (now quite dated) website she read once. She's starting off by overgeneralizing the issue, and she failed to even support her claims with any published papers to begin with. Who *published* any of these claims that PsyGirl makes? Certainly not me. Certainly not Alfven. Certainly not Birkeland.

    That particular claim is an *old* (ancient by scientific standards) claim that no longer actually applies, particularly now that we have some evidence of neutrino oscillation. She's beating up an *ancient* dead horse claim, made by only a *few* "electric universe theorist websites" 10 years ago, and trying to claim it still applies to all electric solar models and theories. That particular claim applies to exactly *no* published electric sun models that I am actually aware of, just some mythical ancient website that apparently predates any evidence of neutrino oscillation.

    Nereid: When challenged to provide independent evidence of this claim - in the form of published material by any "electric universe theorist" - Mozina has been silent (with the exception of two papers by Manuel et al.)

    These are *PsyGirl's* claims, not mine. You're asking the wrong person to support their claim with *published* and quantified support. I'm not the one that claimed that EU theory deviates from mainstream theory in terms of neutrino counts. PsyGirl made these claims, not me. The papers that *I* provided you with, *predict* fusion reactions occur in the solar atmosphere and they predict that fusion occurs inside the sun. You'll find no predictions of *fewer* neutrinos in those papers as PsyGirl has claimed. Why in the world would you ask me or expect me to defend *her* apparently unpublished claims in the first place?

    Go ahead and run from the "quantitative" convection problems of mainstream theory all you like. Go ahead and run from the SDO images that show the effect of the coronal loops on the surface of the photosphere all you like too. It won't save you to bury your head in the sand and to ignore the failures of mainstream predictions. Those problems in mainstream theory won't go away only because you personally ignore them either. The technology is simply catching up to you at this point Nereid. You can't hide from the scientific facts forever and ever.

    Mainstream gas model theory is *highly* dependent upon high speed convection. A slow convection process is a death sentence to mainstream claims about massive particles like Iron and Nickel staying 'mixed together' with Hydrogen. That is *impossible* to justify anymore.

    IMO it's rather hypocritical of you to hold up quantification as king, provide no such quantified evidence to support PsyGirl's erroneous claims, and yet you choose to simply ignore the failed quantified predictions of mainstream theory! What is the purpose of providing any quantified predictions if you refuse to even use them to falsify *your own* theories? When did PsyGirl provide a *quantified* prediction from an EU theorist to even "test"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There are two obvious fallacies and two basic errors in PsyGirls claims. I have never personally made any such claim"

      Indeed. However, according to a very recent post on a leading EU website, you are not "electric universe theorist", so the mistake (if mistake it is) is entirely understandable.
      (source: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=66
      There's a more recent thread, entitled "A list of authors, works and links"; it too does not include your name (nor Manuel's).

      Also, David Talbott - certainly an "electrical theorist" - not only does not include you as one, but also explicitly states that, in "electric universe theory" the source of the Sun's electromagnetic output is external (source: same website as above).


      "Who *published* any of these claims that PsyGirl makes?" Mel Acheson, C. J. Ransom, Don Scott, Dave Smith, David Talbott, Wal Thornhill, Ian Tresman, ... (it's a pretty long list)

      "That particular claim is an *old* (ancient by scientific standards) claim that no longer actually applies, particularly now that we have some evidence of neutrino oscillation [...] That particular claim applies to exactly *no* published electric sun models that I am actually aware of " Again, you might want to check your sources. It would seem that (to take just one example), as late as 2011, the "electrical theorist" Don Scott published material - in more than one place - in which he re-states just that claim (you can find several references to this Scott material on the above website).

      " I'm not the one that claimed that EU theory deviates from mainstream theory in terms of neutrino counts." Perhaps not, but then you don't seem to be acknowledged as an "electric universe theorist" (and those who are most certainly claim " that EU theory deviates from mainstream theory in terms of neutrino counts."

      "PsyGirl made these claims, not me." True, you did not make those claims. However, PsyGirl did not make them either; she was merely summarising what can be found on the internet (and in papers - if papers they be - and books published by Scott, Smith, Thornhill, Tresman, ...)

      Nereid

      Delete
    2. In reference to your assertion about me not being an "electric universe theorist", about all I can say is what a great example of pure denial on your part, and what a ridiculous statement! Who cares what some guy says on some random website in cyberspace? Oy Vey.

      I've still never seen you produce a single quantified calculation by Thornhill, Scott, or anyone else that validates your claims about neutrino predictions in EU theories. Care to cough up the actual quantified prediction and paper for me? So far all I've seen from you are a string of handwave allegations, but not one single actual cited paper that makes such a claim, nor a single quantified "prediction" related to EU solar theory. For example:

      Nereid: Again, you might want to check your sources. It would seem that (to take just one example), as late as 2011, the "electrical theorist" Don Scott published material - in more than one place - in which he re-states just that claim (you can find several references to this Scott material on the above website).

      Which material?

      During debate it's appropriate to provide the paper that you're specifically referencing, and preferably a page number and paragraph where the claim is actually made. You've provided me with nothing of the sort to work with! All you've provided thus far are "vague" references, and you've provided absolutely no quantified neutrino "prediction" from any EU theorist. You toss around Thornhill's name when you feel like it, but they you've already stated his works says *nothing* about neutrinos. What kind of weird game are you playing anyway? Do you even have a *SPECIFIC PAPER* that makes a quantified prediction about neutrino counts, yes or no? Either provide an actual paper and quote, or admit you just made it up.

      Delete
    3. The probelm is that there is no evidence of any quantified calculations of neutrino flux by Thornhill, Scott, or anyone else in any of the many EU theories.
      So we can only guess, e.g.
      * No fusion EU theories = no neutrino flux (debunked!).
      * Magical electrical stuff makes neutrinos EU theories - just fantasies (debunked!).
      * Z-pinch on the surface EU theories = we fry in gamma rays (debunked!).
      * Z-pinch below the surface EU theories = a 13,000,000 K layer below the surface with high densities that has not been observed and probably causes the Sun to explode EU theories (debunked!).

      Delete
    4. how does a nuclear powered sun fit into any REAL EU theories?

      Delete
  24. http://www.electricuniverse.info

    FYI, It's rather disingenuous of PsyGirl to cite that website as a source for any of PsyGirl's claims about electric sun theory. I did a quick search on the word "neutrino" and it's not even listed on the website, nor on the page related to electric sun theory. I didn't find any claims related to convection either. Wherever did she actually get those claims of hers anyway? It apparently wasn't electricuniverse.info. Why cite that reference as a basis for her claims about neutrinos when such claims do not seem to even originate from that particular reference in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  25. "FYI, It's rather disingenuous of PsyGirl to cite that website as a source for any of PsyGirl's claims about electric sun theory." You might like to re-read the blog, Michael; PsyGirl did not say that website was the *sole* source (e.g. "An ex-work colleague was quite worked up about ["electric universe theory"] and even lent me some books", "The theory seemed to be all encompassing and rather difficult to pin down ...")

    "I didn't find any claims related to convection either. Wherever did she actually get those claims of hers anyway? It apparently wasn't electricuniverse.info." Well, the paper by W. Thornhill - which I cited earlier - does cover this, and quite a bit of the material by D. Scott (which I also cited) does too.

    "Why cite that reference as a basis for her claims ..." Again, you might like to re-read the blog; PsyGirl used that site a source for a definition of "electric universe theory".

    Nereid

    ReplyDelete
  26. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110727neutrino.htm

    The only information that I could find from 2011 from Don Scott on the subject of neutrinos was this link to a Thunderbots website page where he carefully explains that despite all the hype, electron neutrino oscillation has not yet been observed in controlled experimentation.

    Scott: "So again – too many electron-neutrinos were measured in this experiment. But that does not seem to bother them. They certainly hope it doesn’t bother you. They hope you will accept their package-deal – that because muon-neutrinos may morph into electron-neutrinos, we must assume the reverse transformation occurs too, even when that has never been observed."

    So what? His statement is a scientific fact AFAIK, but it's absolutely not a 'prediction' about how many neutrinos he expects in "his" model, nor does he explain why they would come in all three types. Apparently you're just making up the claim about EU solar theories "predicting" fewer neutrinos and the vagueness of your references is intentional. You apparently can't support that claim at all!

    All Scott notes is that while some types of oscillations have been observed, the transformation that your requires (and mine as well), has not yet been observed in controlled experimentation. So what? That's an acceptable criticism at this point time AFAIK. While muon to electron transformation have been observed, the reverse has not. That's not a "prediction" related to EU theory, it's a valid scientific criticism of mainstream claims. It may be that such criticisms are put to rest in later experimentation, but to this point in time it remains a valid criticism as far as I know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scot was ignorant in 2011: electron (and other) neutrino oscillation has observed in controlled experimentation.

      Neutrino oscillation
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation
      Many subsequent radiochemical and water Cherenkov detectors confirmed the deficit, but neutrino oscillation was not conclusively identified as the source of the deficit until the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory provided clear evidence of neutrino flavor change in 2001

      Large detectors such as IMB, MACRO, and Kamiokande II observed a deficit in the ratio of the flux of muon to electron flavor atmospheric neutrinos (see muon decay). The Super Kamiokande experiment provided a very precise measurement of neutrino oscillation in an energy range of hundreds of MeV to a few TeV, and with a baseline of the diameter of the Earth.

      Many experiments have searched for oscillation of electron anti-neutrinos produced at nuclear reactors. The KamLAND experiment, started in 2002, has made a high precision observation of reactor neutrino oscillation. Neutrinos produced in nuclear reactors have energies similar to solar neutrinos, a few MeV. The baselines of these experiments have ranged from tens of meters to over 100 km.
      Three experiments are currently measuring reactor neutrino oscillation at a baseline of a few kilometers: Double Chooz, RENO, and Daya Bay

      Neutrino beams produced at a particle accelerator offer the greatest control over the neutrinos being studied. Many experiments have taken place which study the same neutrino oscillations which take place in atmospheric neutrino oscillation, using neutrinos with a few GeV of energy and several hundred km baselines. The MINOS experiment recently announced that it observes consistency with the results of the K2K and Super-K experiments.
      The controversial observation of beam neutrino oscillation at the LSND experiment in 2006 was tested by MiniBooNE. Results from MiniBooNE appeared in Spring 2007, and appeared to contradict the findings of the LSND experiment. Results from the HARP-CDP group also put the LSND result into doubt.
      On 31 May 2010, the INFN and CERN announced[3] having observed a tau particle in a muon neutrino beam in the OPERA detector located at Gran Sasso, 730 km away from the neutrino source in Geneva.
      The currently-running T2K experiment uses a neutrino beam directed through 295 km of earth, and will measure the parameter θ13. The experiment uses the Super-K detector. NOνA is a similar effort. This detector will use the same beam as MINOS and will have a baseline of 810 km.

      Delete
    2. P.S. He was slightly right - in 2011 the θ13 mixing angle had not meen measured. It was measured by early 2012: Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata matrix
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMNS_matrix
      "(assuming the mixing angle Θ13=0, which before 2011 was in good agreement with experiments, but thanks to T2K, Double Chooz and Daya Bay[6] it is known to be around 4.4 deg)."

      Delete
  27. FYI, SDO is continuing to falsify mainstream solar theory, slowly but surely:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120816150801.htm

    "The sun rotates every 28 days, and because it doesn't have a solid surface, it should be slightly flattened
    ..................
    They also found that the solar flattening is remarkably constant over time and too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation. This suggests that other subsurface forces, like solar magnetism or turbulence, may be a more powerful influence than expected."

    Note however that if Birkeland's cathode sun model is correct, and it has a solid surface located 4800KM under the photosphere, a relatively "round" shape is understandable and predictable. :) SDO has not been a friend to standard solar theory. It's already falsified quantified predictions of mainstream theory related to solar convection speeds, and it's "baffling" the physicists right and left in terms of the results that it is returning.

    All of these results tend to falsify mainstream theory, whereas they "just so happen" to support one and only one solar theory, Birkeland's cathode solar model. How lovely that Birkeland's cathode solar model gets to enjoy the fruits of new technology, and how enjoyable it's been watching the mainstream squirm and worry and scratch their collective heads. :)

    ReplyDelete
  28. FYO, SDO is continuing to support mainstream solar theory.

    If you treat the Sun as a ball of gas so that the only forces on it are gravity, pressure, and centrifugal force then it is expected to be slightly flattened by its rotation. But any astronomer knows that the Sun is not a ball of gas - it is a ball of plasma with a big magnetic field. Thus the comment in the article: "This suggests that other subsurface forces, like solar magnetism or turbulence, may be a more powerful influence than expected."
    A good explanation by the Bad Astronomer at Why is the Sun so round?
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/09/12/why-is-the-sun-so-round/

    Birkeland never had a "cathode solar model". He had an analogy where images of brass balls containing magnets + electric fields in a weak vacuum (used to model the Earth!) looked like activity on the Sun. He also though these explained Saturns rings (wrong!), the zodical light (wrong!) and galaxies (very wrong!).

    The only way that this analogy would explain the shape of the Sun is if someone were insane enough to think that the Sun as actually a solid brass (or iron) ball. Or just as dumb: thinking that the actual surface measured by SDO was solid brass or iron magically shaped into a perfect sphere.
    The simple arithmetic that this person would be ignorant of is temperature of the Sun = ~5700 K, melting point of iron = 1811 K and the number 5700 is bigger than the number 1811!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's see if I can translate this 2nd failure in mainstream predictions in the last two months:

      In spite of the fact that convection predictions were off by two whole orders of magnitude, somehow you think that epic failure is some type of 'support' for mainstream theory.

      The sun isn't supposed to be nearly completely round because it's not a solid, but contrary to previous predictions, it is nearly round. So the reason it's now round is not because it's solid, it's because "magic magnetic fields did it", in spite of the fact that mainstream convection predictions were just falsified too. Denial seems to be the primary self defense mechanism of all EU haters.

      http://phys.org/news/2012-07-unexpectedly-motions-sun-surface.html

      Who cares about falsification mechanisms and empirical evidence when you can grab a big bottle of denial off the shelf and take a big swig?

      FYI, Birkeland did have a cathode sun model. More evidence of pure denial on your part.

      http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

      The sun's atmosphere is layered with hotter and thinner plasma layers further from the surface. The layer of silicon plasma under the photosphere is much thicker and much cooler than the surface of the photosphere, just as the photosphere is much cooler and thicker than the outside surface of the chromosphere. Likewise the chromosphere is thicker and cooler than the corona. The temperature at the surface is closer to 1200K. 1200 is a smaller number than 1811. :)

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Let's see if I can make you understand the science (not!). The sun isn't supposed to be nearly completely round when treated as a gas. But it is rounder than expected.
      It would be insane to think that this is beacuse the Sun is a solid ball beacuse the photophere temperature is ~5700 K (over the melting point of all elements).
      So we have to look at the other measured properties of the Sun, thus "This suggests that other subsurface forces, like solar magnetism or turbulence, may be a more powerful influence than expected."

      FYI, you cited a newspaper article from 1913 where Birkeland stated his opinion that stars were negatively charged. That is an opinion not a model.
      He was also wrong - the solar wind does not consist of positive particles. The solar wind is electrically neutral.

      Your inability to understand what you cite is showing:
      http://phys.org/news/2012-07-unexpectedly-motions-sun-surface.html
      "The team of scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Princeton University, NASA’s Goddard Flight Center and New York University was able to determine the flow velocities at a depth of 55000 kilometres, which is eight percent of the solar radius"
      But then you go with a fanatasy about a silicon plasma layer.
      Guess what Michael Mozina: Convection currents mix up layers!

      You are also remain ignorant about basic solar facts. The measured temperature of the photosphere is ~5700 K. The temperature a few 100 km. below the photosphere is ~9400 K. Sunspot temperatures cna be ~3000 K.
      3000 is a bigger number then 1811.
      5700 is a bigger number then 1811.
      9400 is a bigger number then 1811.

      Delete
    4. Whhops - make that ~9400 at 100 km:
      Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IX
      http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6373391#post6373391
      "We can see about 100 km below that layer and combine our observations with our knowledge of the laws of physics, and determine a temperature of 9400 kelvins (e.g., Solar Astrophysics, Foukal, page 153; adopted from the photosphere reference model in Maltby, et al., 1986). This is where the high resolution models stop, but a linear extrapolation down to -400 km shows an expected temperature ~18,400 Kelvins."

      Delete
    5. Apparently you don't understand what you read very well. Birkeland's cathode sun emits *both* kinds of particles and discharges itself toward "space" (now known as the heliosphere). The solar wind is composed of high speed *charged* particles, aka "current" that separate inside of a relatively stable magnetic field (like the magnetosphere).

      Evidently you are still trying to judge the temperatures of plasma separated layers based on a *failed* mainstream solar model that just bit the dust in SDO helioseismology findings that utterly falsify mainstream convection predictions.

      Now of course as I said, 1200 Kelvin (the actual surface temperature) is far less than 1811 Kelvin. When you figure that out, let me know.

      Magma and electrons "flow", not just plasma. You also appear to be in staunch denial of recent SDO findings. Convection does not flow at jet speeds, they flow at walking speeds and best. Even Birkeland's cathode sun model *requires* some amount of mass flow in the form of electrons through all the layers of the sun.

      In case you missed the importance of those recent SDO convection findings, let me spell it out for you. Not only did the mainstream *lose it's most important source of energy* to explain solar atmospheric events, it lost any ability to explain how iron stays mixed with hydrogen when convection is only 1 percent of "predicted value".

      Mainstream solar theory just bit the dust in the first really important SDO paper. The mainstream just lost their "magnetic reconnection" energy source, and they lost their ability to claim that Iron and Nickel stay mixed together with hydrogen and helium in whispy thin plasma.

      LMSAL also clearly *blew* the location of the base of the loops in relationship to the surface of the photosphere. As the very first light images demonstrate, they start 4800KM *under* the photosphere, and leave their mark (and magnetic field alignments) on the surface of the photosphere in 1600A, 1700A and magnetogram images of the surface of the photosphere.

      SDO is utterly and completely *crushing* mainstream theory, whereas Birkeland's solar model is passing with flying colors. Birkeland's cathode sun is not even dependent upon convection as an energy source to explain the solar atmospheric discharges, so convection speeds are of no consequence to Birkeland's model.

      It took took the mainstream 60 years to figure out Birkeland was right about the nature of aurora. At the rate they're going it will take them another 60 years to figure out it's a cathode as he explained (and tested in his lab).

      Delete
    6. Birkeland's cathode sun does do that. So what?
      The solar wind is not comprised of current (no net charge is moved) because it is neutral.

      Apparently you are remain ignorant of the fact that the temperature of the Sun can be measured and that it is ~5700 K for the photosphere.
      The actual surface temperature of the Su is 5700 K
      Sun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun which is fat more than 1811 K. Whyen you learn how to read Wikipedia or a physics textbook, let me know :)

      Plasma flows - wow really stating the obvious.

      In case you missed the importance of those recent SDO convection findings, let me spell it out for you.
      It has nothing to do with the coronal heathing problem! This is convection within the Sun!
      The coronal heating problem has scientific solutions, e.g. wave heating (e.g. Alfven waves), magnteic reconnection, spicule heating.

      Once again - it is stupid to say that the SDO results have anything to do with magnetic reconnection. The energy source for MR is the energy stored in the magnteic field as it is formed within the Sun and then floats out to form coronal loops.

      LMSAL and basic physics also clearly states that the base of coronal loops is on the photosphere.
      It is idoitic to think that we can see in white light 4800 km below the photosphere when the optical depeth is measured to be ~100 km (depends on wavelength). Assuming a surface as bright as the Sun at 4800 km below the photosphere then aboit 1 photon a year escapes the Sun!

      Birkeland did not have a solar model. He had an idea that the Sun emits a neutral solar wind which is correct.

      Delete
    7. Your convection speed problems destroy *every* aspect of mainstream atmospheric dogma as surely as Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect and what Chen calls "plasma redshift" destroy your claims about "dark energy". You're just in hard core denial of scientific fact (as usual). Those Alfven waves you're talking about are *highly* depending upon convection to generate the fields that produce such processes!

      Just as the mainstream ignores all forms of plasma redshift, they also ignore all E fields in space. That's why you're still stuck, groping around in the "dark" ages of astronomy, stuck with placeholder terms for human ignorance like "Dark energy" that are nothing more than placeholder terms for mainstream ignorance of plasma physics. In the real world of plasma physics, plasma redshift occurs in plasma. Only one otherwise falsified cosmology theory needs or requires "dark energy". PC theory has no use for such nonsense, since redshift can easily be explained with generic applications of plasma redshift/tired light mechanisms.

      http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
      http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v1.pdf

      Holushko even includes C# code that demonstrates that dark energy is simply an irrational solution to the redshift phenomenon. Mathematically speaking, photon redshift can easily be explained as a combo of factors, including Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect and what Chen et all called "plasma redshift". Nothing "magically dark" is necessary to explain photon redshift. The only reason the mainstream is groping around in the dark in the first place is because they are ignorant of plasma physics, specifically plasma redshift!

      Delete
    8. The convection speed problems destroys the predictions of convection speed from the current solar model.
      Now where are the EU predictions of convection speed? There are none!
      And what is the stupid mention of dark energy with respect to convection speeds!

      Chen's redshift is just the expected redshift caused by lasers.

      Only a truly ignorant person wuld think that Compton redshift, Stark redshift or the Wolf effect can explain cosmplogical redshift.

      Lying about the mainstream ignoring E fields is just pitiful - it does not.
      Lying about "In the real world of plasma physics, plasma redshift occurs in plasma" is even more pitiful - In the real world of plasma physics, plasma redshift occurs in laser induced plasma.

      And yet more tired light ignorance: Errors in Tired Light Cosmology (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm)

      You repeat again your the inability to understand Chen's paper which is about the Stark redshift causing in laser induced plasma.

      You end with a really ignorant statement: The mainstream knows about plasma physics. It is taoiught in just about every astronomy course. There are many papers on it.
      They know that the Stark effect can cause redshift in laser induced plasma.

      Delete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. FYI, it's rather cheesy of you to use an "unknown" handle, and go back into a conversation that ended months ago, and start posting pure crap to the thread.

    The term "electrical discharge" in relationship to solar flares as used (and tested) by Kristian Birkeland, by James Dungey, Dr. Charles Bruce and many others. You're still in stanch denial of physics RC. It's insane of you to believe that electrical discharges cannot occur in plasma since Dungey himself wrote about those electrical discharges in solar flare events when describing the term "reconnection". Birkeland even *created* them in his lab more than 100 years ago!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong: "electrical discharge" in relationship to solar flares was never used by Kristian Birkeland.
      James Dungey used "electrical discharge" defined as a high current density in relationship to magnetic reconnection as the cause of solar flares.
      Dr. Charles Bruce was a crnk who thoughg that solar flares were actual lightning which is physically impossible since there are no electrical discharge in plasma because it conducts!
      Your "many others" do not exist.

      Dungey's obsolete usage of the term 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
      (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7680464#post7680464)
      "Originally Posted by Dungey (1953 paper)
      A 'discharge' will be a region [of a large mass of ionized gas in a more or less complicated state of motion] in which the electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field, so that all the electrons are moving in the same direction with large velocities."
      Which you have been unable to understand since 13th January 2011!

      Delete
  31. http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf

    On page 662, section 129, Birkeland describes the discharges from his cathode sphere, and how the cathode rays come from that sphere, and he later describes the mathematical models that describe the movements of both types of charged particles. If you're going to lie, at least lie intelligently.

    RC, who do you think you're fooling anyway by trying to remain "Unknown"? Haters are all alike. You're too chicken to use your real name and you distort the facts like a politician.

    There's 100 years of lab demonstrations of electrical discharges in plasma. Wake up and smell the coffee already RC.

    Alfven called reconnection theory "pseudoscience" till the day that he died, and made he personally made that theory obsolete with his double layer paper from 1987.

    I've "understood" your 2011 claims RC, I simply realize they are all BS. Peratt defined an electrical discharge in plasma for you in his book on plasma physics. When did you intend to actually read it and accept it?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Oh, and by the way RC, you're dead wrong about electrical discharges not occurring in plasma:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121011123738.htm

    "Under certain circumstances, plasma tends to form structures such as filaments of electric discharge akin to mini-lightning. "

    So much for your claims about conductors and electrical discharges. You're clueless when it comes to plasma physics RC.

    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=193096

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, and by the way Micheal Nozina , you're really ignorant in citing a new artiecl whose writer is trying to make things simple for his readers. You actually lie about the article by quote mining because the next sentence is
      "The authors specifically investigated a so-called barrier discharge, which features at least one electrical insulating material within the discharge gap that acts as an electrically insulating barrier and can be used as a plasma source."
      An electrical discharge caused by the breakdown of a electrical insulating material !!!!!!!

      So much for your claims about conductors and electrical discharges. You're clueless when it comes to plasma physics Micheal Mozina.
      MM quote mines (lies) yet again in
      Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge II
      (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8131525&postcount=7343)
      2nd November 2011 (11 months and counting)!

      Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
      (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7680464#post7680464)
      18th October 2011 (12 months and counting)!

      Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.
      (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6759444#post6759444)
      13th January 2011 (21 months and counting)!!

      MM: Citing Dungey means that you are stating that the cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection not your "electrical discharges"!
      (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7739253#post7739253)
      8th November 2011 (11 months and counting)!

      Delete
  33. All sciences must suggest one thing otherwise it is not truth, they must suggest that everything is connected.

    Electric universe theory aims to understand the behaviour of lightning within our universe, something conventional cosmology CAN NOT explain.

    Before we rush to disprove an idea, make sure we fully understand it.

    Conventional cosmology contradicts itself by refusing to accept everything within it such as thought. This is non-sensical when cosmology is about the universe. Our phsyical, mental and spiritual selves are within that.

    Too many unanswered questions, which the electric universe theory seeks to explain.


    Einstein himself said his theories were not finished:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q185InpONK4&list=UUvHqXK_Hz79tjqRosK4tWYA&index=6


    Science should always be in development.










    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Too many unanswered questions, which the electric universe theory seeks to explain."

      What a pity, then, that EU theory fails to explain anything!

      I mean, it can't explain the Sun's output of 3.8x10^26 Watts (in electromagnetic radiation), much less the observed neutrino fluxes. If you'd like to go to Mars, in person, you'd better be sure you won't get a lethal dose of radiation on the way. Working out how much radiation you could expect, on a journey between Earth and Mars, is surely a tailor-made question for EU theory, wouldn't you say? Yet no High Priest in the EU Church can tell you the answer, nor has any EU proponent published a method by which you could work out the answer for yourself.

      Why is EU theory so completely sterile?

      Delete
    2. "What a pity, then, that EU theory fails to explain anything"! The EU theory makes correct predictions about the nature of comets, the edge of the sun's influence(where voyager is) And routinely gives answers to papers published daily with headlines reading: " New discovery leaves astronomers baffles, or " No theory ever predicted new findings of probe" Almost every new discovery flies in the face of what we think we know, Don't go sailing, wouldn't want you to sail over the edge. That was a truly pathetic attempt to refute EU

      Delete
  34. I got bored with Creationst arguments and someone recommended I should look up EU. Michael Mozina seems to be the Ken Ham of the universe, whereas Unknown and Nereidt hitchslap him Dawkins' style...
    I was amused, thank you all :)

    EU debunked. QED.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Oh yes...How fun that was. I love a good debate...this was grand!!!!...And dear Z...Debunking seems to be in the mind of the BE-holder!!....CHEERS...I raise my glass to THOUGHT!!!! For surely, without our brains and thinking we would be a sad and sorry bunch of No-things. LOL TO THE GAME...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Keep cool air in and hot air out by sealing openings such as cracks in walls and around windows and doors.
    energy

    ReplyDelete
  37. The funny thing here... If you scroll through ALL the comments the citations for scientifically reputable published literature is so one sided it is ridiculous. There is no debate amongst the people that actually know what they are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I wouldn´t say debunked, just incomplete. Fact is many people would lose their jobs and/or funding if EU is half true so the resistance is not surprising at all. They rather keep working on dark matter, dark energy and other fantasies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So why not earn yourself an all-expenses paid first-class return trip to Stockholm? All you have to do is publish an Electric Universe model of the Sun using which anyone with undergrad math skills can work out the expected flux of neutrinos (here on Earth, of each - or even all - flavors) from the Sun, and where that flux is consistent with what's observed. As a bonus, you'd be a super-hero among EU groupies, because Thornhill, Scott, Johnson, ... none of them have been able to do that.

      Perhaps what you see as "resistance" has nothing to do with the non-existent "fact" you apparently believe? Maybe a goodly number of these "many people" did indeed try to work out such a model, but couldn't? Because, fact is, the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion in its core!

      Delete
  39. Haters gotta hate. I hear the term black hole thrown about a bit here. Best read up on John A. Wheeler, a science fiction writer. He came up with the concept of a reality based singularity by reifying an abstract mathematical theorem where the sum equalled infinity. Then he showed that the probability of such an object in reality was extremely low. Hawking used this scifi concept to pull the proverbial wool. They don't exist and if they did, the idea of them sucking in even time and space is contradicted by the jets that magickly escape this crumpling of sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean John Archibald Wheeler, the theoretical physicist who worked with Einstein later in his career and coined the term black hole? Not everything near a blackhole falls in. If the stuff gets accelerated fast enough (ie speed of light) it can be ejected. Look up Schwarzschild radius. r = (2*Gm)/c^2

      Delete
  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  41. It's a theory. Why bother to prove it wrong.

    I'd be interest in which posters and bloggers support the AGW Theory. I for one do not. I will admit that when the Hebrews were fleeing Egypt in their hummers and u-haul vans there was a warming period. And when the Romans were burning fossil fuels like there was no tomorrow there was a slightly cooler warm period. And once again when the Church was burning all the Witches throughout Europe, it got a little hotter. But following these warming periods during the age of Man, there were cold periods and each proceeding cold period was colder than the previous one.

    It's Sun stupid...

    ReplyDelete
  42. It really doesn't take that much to research but to spare you the trouble, the best place to start to understand the science behind this is at the Thunderbolts Project, both their own website and their YouTube channel. To start with - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUA7XS0TvA&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PLwOAYhBuU3UfvhvcT1lZA6KbSdh0K2EpH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As PsyGirl said, "The “electric universe” has no single paper subject to peer review about its ideas." Should you decide that you need an interferometric radio telescope to test any EU ideas, good luck using YouTube science to design and operate one.

      Delete
  43. As an non-scientist interested in the critical evaluation of pseudoscientific theories and beliefs, I came here by a circuitous route. I bought a job lot of 20 year old copies of Skeptical Inquirer from a charity bookstall, found them fascinating reading and googled to see if the publication was still going strong. I found, to my satisfaction, that it was, but also found a link to an article entitled "Skeptical Inquirer Embarrasses Itself" This turned out to belong to the Thunderbolts Project, mentioned immediately above and in earlier posts. Reading this I was pretty sure, without needing to read the SI article that had sparked this rejoinder, that I had stumbled into a nest of pseudoscientists - the tone was so similar to the anti-evolution crackpots that I encounter on the Net and other lone "theorists" indignant at being dismissed by mainstream scientists - but my physics knowledge is so rudimentary that I could not challenge its statements from my own knowledge. But googling "Electric Universe" brought me to Wikepedia and then here (with a brief diversion via some experimental trance group of the same name :) ) I think I need look no further. My instincts were right, and the Skeptical Inquirer has no reason to feel embarrassed. Phil the fish is quite wrong. Only go to the Thunderbolts Project if you want to examine the psychology of "scientists" who come up with a half thought out hypothesis, fall in love with it and become ever more entrenched in their beliefs the more other scientists point out its flaws. But you could save time by going straight to the Skeptical Inquirer, where you will find the delusions and deceptions of thousands of such people calmly and critically pinpointed.

    Zaphod Beeblebrox, I second your comments of 7 May 2013. See you around

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dear PsyGirl,
    When you have so much invested in the status quo that you think several paragraphs can undo decades of rigorous science, I can understand your perplexity with a theory that has more truth to offer than the mishmash of garbage that passes for today's science. Most scientists are in their own little rut and know the territory quite well. Friends and colleagues who disagree with the current in-group have moved on to other venues. The ones who agreed, stayed. This pretty well provides a vacuum of new ideas that provide good answers to old perplexities. Think it through. Sunspots reveal a cooler core in the sun. This truth fits with the sun as an anode. Fails with the sun as a fusion engine so the not-so-up-to-speed fusion folks just talk about other stuff and say they will find an answer later on. When one comes from an academic interdisciplinary fusion, the universe looks fresh and right on point. Get a degree or two in electrodynamics or plasma physics and you may come around. Then again, if the gravity of the status quo is too great, you may not.
    Looking forward to more light in many science areas.
    Your fellow cosmologist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, Rodlyn Douglas, is the Sun a capacitor, or a resistor? If the Sun is an anode, what is the average current density at or near its photosphere, sufficient to produce the observed output? What keeps the anode Sun from discharging?

      Delete
  45. As soon as a scientist's sanity becomes part of the debate, or when the word pseudoscience is applied, it tells one much more about the person doing the mud slinging, than it does about the "crazy pseudo scientists".
    I have only recently looked at any length into the electric universe idea, enough to tell me that this article is based more on protecting entrenched opinion than objective analysis of observed phenomena that fits the electric universe better than inflationary cosmology does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In which peer-reviewed paper did you read a derivation - from EU first principles - of the expected neutrino flux (by flavour)? How does that quantitative value compare with what's observed (and reported in publicly available relevant peer-reviewed papers)?

      Delete
  46. all of you need a little walter russell in your life...
    what i see here is a bunch of know it alls who use mainstream science to justify their belief yet really have no idea what their talking about.
    instead of accepting what someone has told you to be true because they are "scientist's" who "studied" what some league of shadows wants you to believe , and have provided what LOOKS like proof for their assumptions or theories in mainstream textbooks, ( LMAO), try using your own brain to tap into the universe for true answers. only then will you have potential to know.
    until then. you are all stuck in a revolving door of mainstream foolishness which is the cause of this stir of arguments about whats really true and whats not.
    the truth , like the revolution, will not be televised or reported to mainstream general population...it is found when you learn how to speak to the universe and learn to recognize the answers that are given back to you .....people have already figured this out.. you just have to find those people and their work before its buried for good.
    my advice... START OVER... forget everything you know that was taught to you in school....half the people you see everyday don't even understand that there were 14 presidents before washington... people just don't care to do their own research anymore, and half those who do, don't really understand there is a right way and a wrong way to properly do research .the wrong way will lead you down the wrong path ..the right way will shine light on everything and deliver the fresh perspective needed to get the answers you seek...but most are satisfied with a few hours of reading a book they think has all the answers and some you tube videos to know it all!
    crazy......and sad above all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kinda ironic to see someone call others know-it-alls and then go on a rant to explain that he can single handedly "tap into the universe for truth". Cool. So i guess every single scientist is part of a vast conspiracy... Sure.

      Why don't you go ahead and try making a single astronomical prediction with your truth you found tapping into the universe.

      There may very well be a small team of researchers working on an electrically driven universe model yet what people on this board and in general are deploring is the immense amount of bullshit that has framed around the EU theory, most likely because most of the proponents are completely unfamiliar with the scientific method and make one dumb claim after the other.

      The EU theory is a festering nest of pseudo scientific physics crank who somehow believe they know a higher truth than all other physicist most of the time without even having learned the most basic notions of standard physics and maths, thus making it obvious that they have no argument for picking EU over standard physics other than that they are the type of people who systematically cling to unconventionnal and underground theories for the kick of it.

      Delete
  47. Everything on this post has enforced my view that science is religious in nature...

    ReplyDelete
  48. main-stream science is total religion.

    here is the truth....

    there was no big bang
    there is no black holes
    light does not travel
    gravity does not exist

    everything is electrical

    even our language, in order for you to know what something is, you have to know what it isn't.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @BluePixel, Chef, rVLn-4: your prayers answered:
      http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/

      Delete
  49. Pretty remarkable post. I simply came across your blog and desired to say that I have really enjoyed searching your blog posts.
    electricians brisbane

    ReplyDelete
  50. I am very happy to read such a wonderful blog which gives the helpful information thanks for sharing this blog.solar power

    ReplyDelete
  51. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I tend to agree that the EM force is underestim­ated in cosmology and astrophysics.

    I'm not sure if the EU "per se" can explain the entirety of the observed phenomena, but it's obvious (for me) that the present standard model is also unable to do it.

    Many concepts like dark matter, big bang and dark energy, etc., are mere hypothesis which are carried along with more fundamental ones in order to keep the complexity of the observed data "under control" for theoretical description.
    I don't know of any *proof* of any of these concepts.
    In addition the “cosmological constant problem” seems to openly place the present concepts of the Standard Model of particle physics in conflict with cosmological observations.
    (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208027)

    The concept of black holes is not even an hypothesis, it's just an extrapolation of the known properties of gravity.
    Again, I don't know of any experimental/theoretical *proof* of their existence, but in this case as in the case of the "big bang" concept, I'm convinced that there will never be any proof, as these ideas are purely conceptual artifacts to make the cosmologial models tractable in terms of algebra. Somebody, someday will necessarily replace them by more realistic ideas.

    On the other hand, the concepts of dark matter and dark energy *could be interesting*, as "conceptual doors" in which new theoretical ideas could be developed to fill the gaps of the present theory and, in fact, they could be connected with an extension of the EU, if we consider the EM and Weak interactions as “essentially the same” (unified).

    96% of the total mass-energy of the Universe is made up of "dark energy" and "dark matter" and this speaks volumes about how little we actually know about the Universe, because these "dark" things cannot be directly measured, only indirectly through their gravitational effects.
    (http://wwwthep.physik.uni-mainz.de/~uhaisch/QFTI10/QFTI.pdf)

    Consequently, here enters a leap of faith that General Relativity as we know it here, in our tiny, little solar system, works well *everywhere else*.
    It's another hypothesis, simply because we have had only one Einstein, so far, that could give us a deeper than Newton understanding of gravity and, until another one appears, we "keep our faith" that what we know for the solar system is valid everywhere.

    We cannot predict what the Sun will do in the next six months, but we are as sure as one can be that we know *exactly* what happened 1 millionth of a second after the "big bang" occurred.
    What forces were there, how they evolved into the present system of values and how long it took for all this to happen.

    This is just theory based on hypotheses that we know how to handle mathematically, but if we want to have a truly scientific mind we must have humbleness enough to acknowledge the limits of our present knowledge, so that Nature can help us to evolve and understand reality more deeply.

    I'm convinced that the EU will continue to be an important source of inspiration for the necessary review of cosmology, physics and astrophysics that will probably happen in the near future, now that some fundamental ideas, like string theory and supersymmetry seem to have been almost disproved by the “discovery” of the Higgs boson.

    Some other interesting phenomena, like the apparent seasonal dependence of decay rates of 32Si and 226Ra, etc., with Earth-Sun distance, for example,
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156v1
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

    and described here,
    http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html
    seem to defy our present cosmological models and, in this case, an enhanced concept of dark matter could bring an interesting solution.
    This new concept could shed a new light into the cosmological importance of EM interactions too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The EU is sterile, a wasteland.

      Not only is it incapable of explaining something as obvious as the energy output of the Sun (in the form of both light and neutrinos), it cannot produce useful estimates of the radiation spacecraft (and people) will encounter as they travel in interplanetary space. Quantitative explanations of active galactic nuclei and high mass x-ray binaries (both of which are nicely, if incompletely, explained using black holes)? Fuggedaboutit! Of the cosmic microwave background radiation (dark matter and dark energy)? Nothing from the EU, nix, nada, zip.

      The EU as a source of inspiration? It has inspired lots of people to spam websites (like this one), but has led to nothing of any scientific value, in astronomy, astrophysics, or cosmology (you have evidence to the contrary? Let's see it!)

      Delete
  53. Lots of interesting comments in this thread.
    Congratulations PsyGirl! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  54. You really delivered reliable information. Thank you regarding discussing information.solar panels for petrol station

    ReplyDelete
  55. I value the opinion of anyone who can delve into such deep ideas and offer opinions that appear logical.

    However, there is way more to this story than the electric universe. The math and formulas that have been agreed on since 1800's even throwing Einstein for a loop... Very cool story at the heart of astronomy and physics, and gaining legitimacy more with quantum science. Hyperdimensional physics, superconductivity, Tesla, gravimetrics, Kaku, torsion fields, zero point energy....


    Read the incredible story at http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper1.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dick Hoagland simply went insane after his 'moment' on CBS news with Cronkite was pissed all over by the reality that there's NOT a face on Mars and has simply not only refused to accept his mistake, but has gone on to propagate even more insane ideas (like Nazi tanks on Mars and Glass tubed cities on the Moon) to help 'prove' how NASA and astronomy are covering up his imagined truth so as to not have to face the now IMMENSE demon (that he's created and fostered himself) of his error. He is bat shit crazy and everything on his site merely proves this (and functions as carnival barking to hawk his seemingly endless book and video wares)...

      Delete
  56. Just got this from someone who thinks the facts are still with the Nuclear Fusion model of the sun. I couldn't help but wonder since you so whimsically emboldened your position by siding the whole of the scientific community with yourself... are you a plasma physicist?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me get this right ... you think the only people who are entitled to write about the Sun and its neutrino output are plasma physicists?

      I guess you won't be reading anything written by any EU proponent then, since none of them are plasma physicists!

      Delete
  57. Where do you think the continued exponential growth will come from; creating more and more imaginary materials to suit the assumption, or following the evidence?
    The EU follows the evidence and strictly adheres to the known laws of physics.
    Dark matter does not.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "The EU follows the evidence and strictly adheres to the known laws of physics."

    Really? Can you point to an EU calculation showing that the expected flux of neutrinos, here on Earth, matches - quantitatively - the one actually observed? Or one which gives the Sun's energy output as 3.8x10^26 Watts?

    No, I didn't think you could.

    ReplyDelete
  59. It makes me laugh how all the pseudoscience proponents in their heated arguments against rationality mostly just paste URL's to and use short quotes from the small handful of EU "researchers" (that seem to take much more time making videos writing books and blogs and articles luring people in to buy them rather than continuing to do actual science) to prove this crap and even argue and in-fight with each other and take so much more time taking pot-shots at and making fun of real science than actually walking people logically (let alone calmly) through the 'science' themselves. If all of you EU/PC children wish to continue believing in Santa and the Easter Bunny (those ARE the names of the two 'scientists' who actually pawn this crap off to folks, right?) go ahead. But keep your talk away from the grown-ups table. We're busy discussing reality.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Thank you for the fantastic article. The place else could anyone get that kind of info in such a perfect means of writing? I have a presentation next week, and I am at the search for such information. To get new information visit here
    www.electricienfrance.com

    ReplyDelete
  61. I'm not sure i subscribe to the EU theory, though in recent years it's hypotheses, seem to be refining.

    what bugs me more is, and this is prevalent in science these days, is the "we know we are right attitude" of both sides .... when the first statement of any true scientist is "i don't know" .....

    I wonder what Galileo would say ..... he was debunked as well .... by the Inquisition.

    but what else can you expect from those who fear losing their jobs (and credibility) when the status quot is broken

    ReplyDelete
  62. The electricity idea seems to make a lot of sense to me is all im going to say. Ive never subscribed to the idea of a black hole or some god particle . . .listen to yourselves. When you start looking away from things you cant see, touch, create, predict or even simulate with accurate hypothesis you know you are going off the mark. For me its the scale(time and size) which i think is too much for us to comprehend, even our talented greats, its seems perfectly reasonable to me that a super charge melded cosmic debris together, this created its own field drew more in and then constant bombardment of charge during the suns most chaotic period created the planets. Its doesnt make sense to me that things just clashed together in space in a vacuum and span round for a bit. The planets are there, massive, impressive, all have similar characteristics one way or another and what have we seen on all of them . .lightning. the fact we talk about poles and can see the differences between one end and the other... just saying guys, i love reading about every last bit of it but this electricity/plasma idea is quite clearly the one that makes the most sense to anyone walking around on this bloody planet

    ReplyDelete
  63. This isn't the correct way to disprove something. You are making a ton of intellectual fallacies which don't prove your point of view nor does it help disprove what you want to disprove. The only way to truly disprove or prove a theory is by textbook laboratory testing. What you are using otherwise is called consensus buildings, which is what historians use. It is not actual science, so it shouldn't be used in place of actual science either. It follows a different aspect of cosmology and falls between Science and History, which is interesting because we are dealing within the same realm of natural science laboratory sciences indulge, but we are falling out in how we approach the data that reflects the same commonality made present with historians and social sciences.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Your article is really interesting. Thanks for sharing this informative article.
    Inverter Suppliers in Chennai

    ReplyDelete
  65. I tend to agree with Zhan Ryushin. There is no need for you, the PsyGirl, to play it like the White House Press Secretary. For example you wrote "Electric universe theorists argue that these neutrinos have never been detected, and those inferred by their effects are about half of what would be produced by a fusion reaction in the sun." - well, from what I read "EU theorist" claim that the "Big Bang theorist" can't account for some significant amount of sun neutrinos and as for now their claim is valid because as you wrote "We have electron neutrino detectors, and once we build a tau neutrino detector the ‘flux’ WILL add up to the exact amount to solve the solar problem."
    As I said there is no need for this sophistry unless the PsyGirl let her female nature take over in the attempt to have the last word (just like my wife ;).

    ReplyDelete
  66. Interesting blog. This is one of my favorite blog also I want you to update more post like this. Thanks for sharing this article.
    Best Electricians in Chennai

    ReplyDelete
  67. I wonder how a blog site would have read during the change from Ptolemaic Cosmology to Copernican. I make no comment about the relative merits of BB vs EU as I have no expertise in the argument. I 'm hoping that keeping an historical perspective might help us be more humble about "known" truths. Also, keep in mind the "truth" of global warming and how "peer-reviewed" literature keeps that myth going!

    ReplyDelete