I'm not the one playing word games here. Scott explicitly states that the "random current density" constitutes the solar discharge, and he shows the numbers for that...Aristarchus wrote:Scott just doesn't just show a diagram, he explains it with text. Why didn't you mention that? Let's look at the text, shall we - and pay heed to my bold emphasis?Charles Chandler wrote:On page #3 of the referenced paper, he shows a diagram of random electron motions. Yes, those might be moving at 105 m/s. But that doesn't mean that the net drift velocity is that. The net drift velocity is 0 from Brownian motion.
Plasmas have what is called the “plasma frequency”. Even after an electron is freed om an atom (producing an ionized on/electron pair) that electron tends to oscillate around the +ion at a certain frequency. The electron is free to drift away from the ionic center, but often continues to dance around it until it jumps over to the vicinity of another ion. Visualize a set of 20,000 (ionized) ion/electron pairs in a plasma where only one of them at a time jumps (drifts) to a neighboring ion. The vast sea of dancing (in Brownian motion) electrons easily camouflages the drift motion of one out of 20,000 electrons. That is why the criticism of the Juergens ES model that says, “We only see equal numbers of ions and electrons moving in the solar wind.” Is not a valid one.
You see the word games CC is playing here? No? Let me explain. Scott explains that the drift motion is one out of every 20,000 electrons.
But he finds that this yields 20,000 times more current that is actually necessary to light up the Sun. So then he says that "the vast sea of dancing (in Brownian motion) electrons easily camouflages the drift motion of one out of 20,000 electrons." Well, yes, but try to follow the logic. He is saying that Brownian motion constitutes a current (which is not correct). Then he says that this particular Brownian motion causes 20,000 times more current than could possibly be there. Oops. So the Brownian motion doesn't cause the current -- it just camouflages the real drift that actually does the work. But then Brownian motion actually isn't a factor, so why did he mention it? I'll tell you why: he pulled a bait-n-switch, using Brownian motion as camouflage (literally and figuratively). To the unsuspecting reader, he successfully established 1) plenty of current, and 2) the plausibility of a drift. But Brownian motion doesn't constitute a current, so really he's just making a bald assertion that the drift is there, and hoping that the bait-n-switch made it sound convincing.Scott wrote:http://electric-cosmos.org/SolarElecFlux2013.pdf
At the time Juergens made his calculation (1979), current estimates of the state of ionization of the interstellar gas were that there should be at least 100,000 free electrons per cubic m. But in light of the new update (see #2 above), this is now increased 100 fold to 107/m3. The random electric current of these electrons would be Ir = Nev where N is the electron density per cubic meter, e is the electron charge in coulombs, and v is the average velocity of the electrons (in m/s). Using these values, we find that
Ir = Nev
= 107 electrons x 1.6x10-19 Coulombs/electron x 105 m/s
so the random electric current density is about 1.6x10-7 Amp per square meter through a surface
oriented at any angle.
The total electron current that can be drawn by the solar discharge is the product of this random current density and the surface area of the sphere occupied by the cathode drop.
In all due fairness to others who missed this, I read the paper several times over the last couple of years, before spotting the bait-n-switch. Similarly, I read about Scott's chromospheric current regulator several times, and it sounded technical enough, and Scott has a PhD in EE, so I thought that it just had to be correct -- until I actually went through the whole thing step-by-step, and realized that it isn't what it appears to be. He has the voltage drop in the chromosphere, which is what (supposedly) regulates the discharge in the photosphere. Yet if the voltage drop was in the chromosphere, that's where the discharge would be! So that's just another bait-n-switch.
OK, he's good at it. Like I said, if somebody with a PhD in EE spews a bunch of jargon and shows some numbers in scientific notation, if you're not paying attention, you just might give him the benefit of the doubt, and a carefully crafted deception might get past you. But if you apply the same critical scrutiny to Scott's model as you do the mainstream models, you will find that like the mainstream, he's leveraging bad intuition to make something sound reasonable that actually isn't going to work.
And then, if you review the proceedings of this forum, and of the EU conferences, you'll find that his model hasn't changed in 10 years. And you'll also find a lack of responsiveness to issues that have been raised. A good paradigm continues to bear new fruit. The EU is starting to look like a dead paradigm.
And then we see the ES model getting financial support from senior defense contractors and presidential campaign managers (i.e., SAFIRE). Clearly people within the establishment are pushing the EU agenda. Why would they do this, if the EU has locked down on EM configurations that are not correct? I'll tell you why -- it's because the EU has locked down on EM configurations that are not correct. They're sand-bagging their opponents. You can go with the mainstream models, or you can dabble in the EU alternative, but that isn't correct, which brings all of the prodigal sons back home to the mainstream.
You'll see this same tactic employed in a lot of different areas, if you know what you're looking for. When I started doing independent research over 10 years ago, I wondered why people could get major funding to do things like String Theory, which by definition is untestable, and I couldn't get anybody to seriously consider electric tornado theory. I'm now convinced that the reason is that I was disagreeing with the mainstream, and not obviously wrong. You can get funding within the mainstream, or outside of it -- if you're definitely wrong. But you cannot get funding to demonstrate that there is a better way.
And you repeatedly call me a shill? That's a serious charge in this business, but OK, since you opened the door, let's go inside and have a look around. Your posts are turning out to be an encyclopedia of rhetorical tactics, and it's a classic technique for frauds to call somebody else a fraud, to get the label to stick to somebody else, lest it invariably end up sticking to them. But if you're going to make accusations like that, you have to back them up, or the charge of fraud will fall back on you. Frankly, I think that it is your intention to show that the EU can be just as specious, and just as hateful, as the mainstream, so that the mainstream doesn't look bad by comparison. The EU can be a religion that has to be taken on faith, and the EU will flame you really bad if you don't see the same vision. It can dismiss an absence of evidence in support as inconclusive, which sometimes is OK, but then if one in a million of the data are in support, they'll call it validation, which is not OK. You can't call the large body of data inconclusive if it doesn't support your model, and then draw conclusions from the extremely small portion of it that IS in support without violating your own standards for proper data interpretation. And you can't claim that your model has been verified (e.g., Electric Sun Verified) by data that the model didn't predict, and which are inconsistent with it. The ES model predicts that the current density continues to relax with distance from the Sun. This is why they didn't predict a spike in current density in the heliopause, and why it doesn't verify the ES model. If we give all of the data consistent treatment, those data are just as inconclusive as the absence of verification from the many more satellites closer to the Sun.
And the way that you're using the philosophy of science to validate the EU is fallacious, and in the academic community, this is a well-known fallacy. It is true that new paradigms require a shift in the way we think, which forfeits the support of the all of the material developed within the previous paradigm. It is also true that new paradigms have provided an enormous amount of value in the history of science. But it would be an undistributed middle to say that all new paradigms will provide an enormous amount of value. Some of those paradigms are demonstrably wrong, and there is no value in that. To have anything more than garden-variety rhetorical techniques, you have to demonstrate that the new paradigm has cash value. And I don't mean that it's something that is nice to think about. I mean that you have to show that the new paradigm can solve problems that the old one cannot. And by "solve" I mean "really solve" -- not just jargon and numbers that look good, without actually having anything to do with reality. I mean identifying the physical mechanisms at work, in a way that yields predictive capability of humanitarian utility. That was my motivation in the development of a more accurate theory of tornadoes, and has continued to be my motivation as I apply the same methods to other topics, such as volcanoes, earthquakes, and CMEs. I'm not developing a belief system that is just something that is cool to think about. I'm looking for tangible benefits to society -- the kinds of things that would benefit people even if they didn't believe in the model -- thereby proving that belief was not the active ingredient.
And finally, if you're going to toss all manner of classical analysis (such as what I'm doing), and claim that T. S. Kuhn said that it would be OK, that's fine. But don't turn around an attempt to support this new paradigm with calculations of current densities, trying to make it look like classical science. If it's a brave new paradigm that don't need no stinkin' physics, that fine -- just explicitly state what it is. But if you claim to be doing "real science" while actually ignoring classical methods, you'll draw the charge of fraud.