Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:32 am

Aristarchus wrote:
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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Nov 19, 2014 9:56 am

I doubt if Aristarchus is a shill. I certainly doubt that Charles is a shill. And I doubt that Don Scott intentionally tries to deceive anyone in how he explains his model.

I think the electric universe is just a very complicated subject which even very intelligent and honest people get confused about. And they try to explain their own understanding hoping that others may improve it. And it's hard to think rationally about more than one model at a time, esp. when they're at odds in some ways.

I think Aristarchus is paranoid or something, so he thinks Charles and his few supporters are domestic enemies. I think there's enough corruption in society that it's natural for anyone to suspect ulterior motives of others. So I think paranoia is understandable and often justifiable. If there's a real conspiracy, then it ain't paranoia.

I was criticized for saying I find CC's model to have about a 70-80% probability and the EU model 40%, because the percentages add up to over 100%. But the models are independent and I'm giving independent probability estimates. There are numerous models available. There are other electric models besides EU and CEU. I would give all models at least a 1% probability. I think it's likely that the final truth will include the best aspects of a number of models, not just one.

This debate would surely benefit from having a competent moderator or two, or from everyone being disciplined enough to stick to sharing facts and discussion of them.

Aristarchus said Charles ignores the Voyager data which shows unexpected charge movement near the heliopause. Why not elaborate on what that data is and what it indicates? And is it true that the Voyagers were not programmed to look for electric currents, until they reached the heliopause?

I asked for facts about where satellite observations were made. I assume that most have been made within the equatorial plane of the solar system and that Ulysses is the only one that has sampled the other latitudes above and below the equatorial plane, but only very near the Sun. So there's plenty of room for a current above and below the plane, but apparently not a current that actually reaches the Sun.

Analysis of Scott's model could be done more thoroughly to help readers verify or understand whether or not it has flaws. Everyone's guilty of having flaws, but most are not guilty of intentional deception, I believe.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4411
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby nick c » Wed Nov 19, 2014 11:37 am

Lloyd wrote:This debate would surely benefit from having a competent moderator or two, or from everyone being disciplined enough to stick to sharing facts and discussion of them.
You are asking for something that is not realistic. Here is your mistake....this is not a formal debate! the implications of the thread title not withstanding.
As I have stated many times, this forum is not a venue conducive to a formal debate. Utilizing this forum as platform for debate has been tried before and was found to be unmanageable and frankly not worth the effort.
The only moderation that is going to take place is that which pertains to forum rules...... that is civil behavior, staying on topic, etc. etc.
The same as any other thread!
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2473
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:27 pm

Lloyd wrote:This debate would surely benefit from having a competent moderator or two, or from everyone being disciplined enough to stick to sharing facts and discussion of them.

You would be, and certainly have been, and excellent debate moderator. Aristarchus might think that you're biased, but I don't recall you ever cutting me any slack. ;) You entertain a wide variety of ideas (many of which I disagree with). You're open-minded, and you're civilized. This community is lucky to have you on board.

I think that there is too much of a difference between Aristarchus and I for this to be productive. I'm still waiting for the "meat and potatoes" -- I thought that he meant "physics", but I'm thinking that I was wrong about what he meant by that. It seems that what he considers to be substance is what I would call argumentativeness. And I consider that to be a waste of time.

Still, if other proponents would like to engage in a formal debate, it should be possible on this forum, and it would be instructive to everybody. I have raised serious questions, especially with the ES model, and haven't gotten answers. Maybe I'm missing something, but the next conclusion is that it isn't being defended because it's indefensible. Certainly it will have a short lifespan if nobody cares enough about it to show its strengths (in a non-rhetorical way).
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Aristarchus » Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:34 pm

Lloyd wrote:Aristarchus said Charles ignores the Voyager data which shows unexpected charge movement near the heliopause. Why not elaborate on what that data is and what it indicates? And is it true that the Voyagers were not programmed to look for electric currents, until they reached the heliopause?


Reading bold emphasis: No. I didn't. Charles stated he ignored it because of the "scant" data.

Charles Chandler wrote:Why look at scant data from the heliopause to determine if the Sun is electrically powered from outside of the heliosphere? We have many, many, many more data from nearer the Sun, especially around the Earth.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15266&start=30



Scant is a subjective term, but will revisit that later, because it has already been posited here the significance of the discovery made by Voyager 1 & 2. Evidence for the significance is found in the links I provided on this topic, and some of those links were academic ones. In addition, another key component was that what was discovered was the opposite of what they thought would comport to the standard model. Yeah, that's big chunk to ignore.

However, let's address your second assertion - or your role as the questioning Socrates student - regarding the measurements made by Voyager. Voyager 1 had four Faraday cup devices. Three were pointed at the solar wind, and another was turned sideways of the solar wind to detect electrons. Furthermore, Faraday cup detectors are not known for their sensitivity compared with electron multipliers, but the former are used for their accuracy.

Now, when Voyager 1 reached the cosmic purgatory (love those names, it's like some B movie sci-fi), and this is where the sun's charged particles slow and turn inward. Although, unexpectedly the interstellar charged particles increased 100-fold. Oh, and this also showed an increase in the magnetic field from interstellar space.

So, where are those in-flowing electrons to the Sun? Well, one would have to build a new probe based on the new evidence from data gathered by Voyager. Something with more precise measurements than something sent up in the late 70's. Of course, you would also think a mission detail that would test a new theory, but that's not going to happen. That makes it easy for CC to simply refer the probes nearer the Sun and Earth. Or CC can have his/her interlocutor try to prove a negative. NASA is still exploring the Van Allen Belts and finding new discoveries, not simply relying on the Explorer missions.

Physics? I'm trying to convey logic:

Three of the cups are directed at the solar wind, while the fourth is turned sideways in relation to the solar wind direction to look at each of the planets on the two Voyagers’ itineraries and to detect electrons.\

http://www.ksevt.eu/Site/portfolio/voya ... avretic-2/



The plasma investigation made use of two Faraday-cup detectors, one pointed along the earth-spacecraft line and one at right angles to this line. The earth-pointing detector determined the macroscopic properties of the plasma ions, obtaining accurate values of their velocity, density, and pressure. Three sequential energy scans were employed with (delta E)/E equal to 20, 7.2, and 1.8%, allowing a coverage from subsonic to highly supersonic flow. The side-looking Faraday cup measured electrons in the energy range from 5 eV to 1 keV.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experime ... 77-084A-06

An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison
User avatar
Aristarchus
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Nov 19, 2014 9:31 pm

Thanks for the data, Aristarchus. Do you happen to have info on what latitudes the Voyagers are at in or near the heliopause? I ask because I'm wondering if they're in the Sun's equatorial plane or how far above or below it they may be. And that might tell us if any of the solar system outside the plane has been sampled.

Anyway, data like that should be helpful for moving forward with the debate, if Charles is willing to keep at it.

Charles, am I a moderator? If so, I suggested possibly two moderators in case one or both were biased. And I am biased, as my 40% vs. 70-80% probability estimate suggested.

Aristarchus, if you don't mind having assistance getting further data and facts here in support of Scott's model and against CC's model, in case your time is very limited, I or anyone could ask other of his supporters to come here to help out. A lot of them answered the call to comment on my Space Conductor or Insulator thread, so maybe they would comment here too, if asked. If I have enough time, I'll go ahead and give the APB, if no one beats me to it. If you can get Don Scott to help, that would be even better.

Charles, if you have your arguments against Don's model written up on your site, could you provide a link? I hope you have all of them there in one place.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4411
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Nov 19, 2014 11:12 pm

Charles, this statement, "Space is the perfect medium for charge drift, but perfect insulator for charge conductance." was just made by Vari in the Space Insulate or Conduct thread. I asked him/her for data and if that would mean that galactic electric currents power the stars, and I hope there will be an answer.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4411
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Aristarchus » Thu Nov 20, 2014 12:59 am

Charles Chandler wrote:He is saying that Brownian motion constitutes a current (which is not correct).


The diffusion current is a product of the random Brownian motion. A diffusion current can go with or against the drift current.

Electronic diffusion, resulting in an electric current called the diffusion current.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/ ... usion.html



Since Scott is referring to free electrons per cubic m, I suspect that he is referring to the density gradients.

Charles Chandler wrote: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?


The diffusion current is the result of the Brownian motion. The drift current is one out of every 20,000 electrons. But you just can't measure the drift current, because you now have to account for the incoming interstellar electrons, which have increased 100-fold. Where the hell did they go? Are they just hanging out smoking cigarettes? How do you account for that? Do you simply ignore it? The solar wind doesn't make a splash at the end of its journey at the end of the solar system with the release of internally ignited energy. And we also know that the planets have their own dynamic electromagnetic interplay with their corresponding satellites, so where did this energy go? Let's say the Sun is internally ignited, and even consider it is due to electrical properties as you appear to describe. Now, let's say the galactic core is internally ignited that gives birth to stars. How can this system be self sustaining each other? It simply isn't logical.

Energy is its own self-sustaining system. When the electric current builds up enough magnetic force, it will compress upon itself. A galaxy will either produce stars dependent on the electromagnetic energy build up to create a z-pinch, or build up to a point that the galaxy discharges a quasar, which then repeats the process. How does one increase voltage? Through a series of magnetic coils, or moving a magnet between coils, depending on the speed and velocity of the movement.

It's simply spin. That is why I asked earlier, what is electricity? You have to apply a verb to it. Just as a particle is actually a wave. It's simply movement. The movement is a dance. The system has to feed into itself to produce more energy. It has to contain that loop - coil - spin.

Oh well, I'm sure I'm off topic by now, but just think of reality as a very simple thing. Don't complicate it. Or else, you have theory upon theory - like Ptolemy's solar system. You're just perceiving, but not actually observing.
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison
User avatar
Aristarchus
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Aristarchus » Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:07 am

Lloyd wrote:Thanks for the data, Aristarchus. Do you happen to have info on what latitudes the Voyagers are at in or near the heliopause? I ask because I'm wondering if they're in the Sun's equatorial plane or how far above or below it they may be. And that might tell us if any of the solar system outside the plane has been sampled.


I'm not satisfied with the information I've found in this regard, and will see if access to databases will yield better results. This is what I've found, thus far:

Heliographic Inertial Coordinate System (HGI) The HGI coordinates are Sun-centered and inertially fixed with respect to an X-axis directed along the intersection line of the ecliptic and solar equatorial planes, and defines zero of the longitude, HGI_LONG. The solar equator plane is inclined at 7.25 degrees from the ecliptic. This direction was towards ecliptic longitude of 74.367 deg on 1 January 1900 at 12:00 UT; because of the precession of the Earth's equator, this longitude increases by 1.4 deg/century. The Z-axis is directed perpendicular to and northward of the solar equator, and the Y-axis completes the right-handed set. The longitude, HGI_LONG increase from zero in the X-direction towards Y-direction.The latitude HG_LAT increases to +90 deg towards the north pole, and to -90 deg towards south pole.

Heliographic (rotating) Coordinate System (HG) HG, differes from HGI only in the sense that the zero of the longitude, HG_LONG is fixed on the Sun and (by convention) rotates at the fixed period of 25.38 days. The zero longitude is defined as the longitude that passed through the ascending node of the solar equator on the ecliptic
plane on 1 January, 1854 at 12 UT (Julian day = 2398220.0). The longitudes are also known as Carrington longitudes.The latitude is HG_LAT.

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/science/Vgrlocations.pdf




http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/Proposal-2005/VgrProp05.pdf

I'll try to gather more research.
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison
User avatar
Aristarchus
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Thu Nov 20, 2014 7:27 am

Aristarchus wrote:Scant is a subjective term, but will revisit that later...

Ummm... saying that you'll come back later with the support for your assertions is becoming quite a habit for you. But I'm starting to doubt that you actually intend to revisit these issues. Are you keeping a list of all of them? Are you going to publish a book? Or is deferral just a rhetorical device for you?

In a formal debate, either you support the assertion, or you withdraw it.

Aristarchus wrote:In addition, another key component was that what was discovered was the opposite of what they thought would comport to the standard model. Yeah, that's big chunk to ignore.

Would it be a big chunk to ignore the fact that the ES proponents didn't predict it either? The ES model requires that the current density continue to fall off with distance from the Sun. After the discovery, they claimed that the current in the heliopause verified their model, but the reality is that in their model, the increased current shouldn't be there.

But like I said, the poverty of data, and what can be made of them, is only one of the issues here. There are structural problems with Scott's model that need to be addressed that are far more fundamental.

Lloyd wrote:Charles, am I a moderator? If so, I suggested possibly two moderators in case one or both were biased. And I am biased, as my 40% vs. 70-80% probability estimate suggested.

OK. Now we just have to find an ES proponent willing to moderate a formal debate.

Lloyd wrote:Charles, if you have your arguments against Don's model written up on your site, could you provide a link? I hope you have all of them there in one place.

Yes, I'm attempting to keep track of the for/against arguments, in a format that puts each logical statement in its proper position relative to the others. This way, each statement is only made once (though it can be cross-linked to wherever it is relevant), and subsequent questions/answers pertaining to that statement are filed directly under it. This eliminates all of the redundancies of these long-winded forum threads, where the same thing is said many times, and sorting it all out requires a lot of time. Rather, each argument should occur in a logical hierarchy relative to related material, and you should be able to go straight to the topic of interest, and find all of the related material, first time, every time. So, time permitting, I've been entering the various points and for/against arguments.

The main folder for stellar and solar models is here:

QDL / Topics / Science / Astronomy / Stellar/Solar Models

The sub-topic concerning whether or not the Sun is externally powered is here:

QDL / Topics / Science / Astronomy / Stellar/Solar Models / Stellar Energy Sources / Hypotheses
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Aristarchus » Thu Nov 20, 2014 5:07 pm

Charles Chandler wrote:Ummm... saying that you'll come back later with the support for your assertions is becoming quite a habit for you. But I'm starting to doubt that you actually intend to revisit these issues. Are you keeping a list of all of them? Are you going to publish a book? Or is deferral just a rhetorical device for you?


Actually, I believe I did hint at the answer, but I was responding to Lloyd. I don't need to write a book for each response on this forum. And yes I do have a list: Double Layers and Debye Sheaths. When I post something I want to insure its on topic or relevant to reintroduce, and to have the corresponding quotes from links that demonstrate the information has been sourced. I do not want to engage in your obfuscation technique of when asked to provide something, you then send the reader to a table of contents to dig through.

And yes, I have published a book of fiction, and currently working on the sequel. I also have several chapters of a non-fiction book that I'm working on regarding the influence of Thomas Kuhn, Carroll Quigley, Oswald Spengler, and Friedrich Nietzsche pertaining to the state of modern science and the Occidental civilization. I've also have an introduction written concerning the state of NASA and space travel. In addition, I go to the gun range once a week, practice dry triggering and clean my guns, have a full-time job as a research librarian, help the wife on the weekends planting bulbs, and currently reading the Lost Centuries by John Glub. Sorry, CC, I know you pride yourself on having an awe-inspiring detailed analysis, but unfortunately it's not the first love of my life.

Here is the hint that I already wrote in my previous post to Lloyd:

Aristarchus wrote:Now, when Voyager 1 reached the cosmic purgatory (love those names, it's like some B movie sci-fi), and this is where the sun's charged particles slow and turn inward. Although, unexpectedly the interstellar charged particles increased 100-fold. Oh, and this also showed an increase in the magnetic field from interstellar space.


I also already mentioned on more than one occasion on this topic about the 100-fold increase that was unexpected and surprised the scientists. I was told then to supply a link to confirm this, which surprised me since this has been documented for at least the past several years. But you see, CC, you stated that we need not concern ourselves with the data from Voyager, or how a negatively charge spacecraft will accelerate anomalously or appear to get push back towards the Sun.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/voyager-1 ... e-of-what/

It is easy to see that we have within the solar plasma sheath a weak but constant electric field that accelerates solar protons away from the Sun in the form of the solar wind and causes electrons to drift toward the Sun (and causes negatively charged spacecraft, like Pioneer 10, to accelerate anomalously backwards toward the Sun). The overall result of the charge drifts in opposite directions is the current that lights the Sun.

<snip>

At the same time, electrons accelerated inward from interstellar space toward the solar sheath should provide the energy necessary to ionize neutral interstellar gas drifting through the solar plasma sheath. Depending upon the charge on the spacecraft, Voyager 1 itself should experience anomalous accelerations.

It would seem that even at this preliminary stage of the investigation of the edge of the solar system there should be room for more than one hypothesis. Maybe Voyager 1 will demonstrate what’s wrong with single hypotheses? Whatever, it’s high time to “eschew enthrallment in science!”



I find it odd that I'm defending a position that you have stated that we can choose to ignore. In addition, I took the time to respond to Lloyd and then to you on a different topic. I mean, seriously? How many topics should we conduct in one post? I think it quite reasonable to state that one will return to a topic later, just as when you state in a response that you're still compiling data and formulating research based upon a fellow poster's question. I also find it odd that we're not allowed to critique your research, but its open season on Scott and Thornhill.

I'm also not sure why you think you can give directives. If I decide to take my argument from the perspectives of Kuhn and Quigley, that is my prerogative. If others want to try to punish with insults, I welcome it. I think for one with such confidence in his research, as yourself, you would deploy the same demeanor.
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison
User avatar
Aristarchus
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Nov 21, 2014 10:45 pm

Aristarchus wrote:
Aristarchus wrote: Now, when Voyager 1 reached the cosmic purgatory [], and this is where the sun's charged particles slow and turn inward. Although, unexpectedly the interstellar charged particles increased 100-fold. Oh, and this also showed an increase in the magnetic field from interstellar space.

[] http://www.holoscience.com/wp/voyager-1 ... e-of-what/
It is easy to see that we have within the solar plasma sheath a weak but constant electric field that accelerates solar protons away from the Sun in the form of the solar wind and causes electrons to drift toward the Sun (and causes negatively charged spacecraft, like Pioneer 10, to accelerate anomalously backwards toward the Sun). The overall result of the charge drifts in opposite directions is the current that lights the Sun.
<snip>
At the same time, electrons accelerated inward from interstellar space toward the solar sheath should provide the energy necessary to ionize neutral interstellar gas drifting through the solar plasma sheath. Depending upon the charge on the spacecraft, Voyager 1 itself should experience anomalous accelerations. []

[] I also find it odd that we're not allowed to critique your research, but its open season on Scott and Thornhill. []

That last sentence seems to be a rhetorical one, since I don't think anything is actually preventing anyone from critiquing CC's model, nor EU models.

At the beginning there you say the solar wind slows at the heliopause and turns inward and the interstellar ions increase 100 times and the magnetic field increases too. Do you have info on the makeup, density and charge of the solar wind at that point? And do you have figures also on the interstellar ions? Because it seems necessary to know what figure is having a 100 fold increase in the opposite direction. CC posted a graph earlier that showed that the solar wind has very few free protons by the time it reaches Earth's orbit, so it seems that the solar wind should be practically neutral by the time it reaches the heliopause.

CC has provided figures for the Sun's power output and calculations of the power available via his model of charge-free double layers in the Sun. Do you know of similar figures and calculations for Thornhill's or Scott's model? Thornhill's statement that "The overall result of the charge drifts in opposite directions is the current that lights the Sun" would be more impressive if there are figures to go with it. Right?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4411
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Nov 23, 2014 11:17 am

Alien Sky video #3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuQfFRqjAxM

Charles, have you seen this new video? It's about comets.

We've discussed somewhere that geysers on Mars and some moons may be caused similar to earthquakes and vulcanism by the CFDLs in them. Comets have jets that resemble those geysers. Could comets that are only a few miles in diameter be composed of CFDLs too, which cause the jets? Or do you accept the EU's explanation of them?

I think a little after the one hour mark on the video there's discussion of the breakup of comets. It appears that CMEs or spikes in the solar wind output often cause these breakups. They also cause brightening of comets. Halley was beyond the orbit of Uranus when it brightened after its 1986 perihelion. That was apparently due to a CME. I was surprised that CMEs can go that far, since your graph showed that solar wind proton counts are near zero by the time they reach Earth's orbit.

I think the EU theory is that a close approach between Venus or something and Mars electrically carved out the Vallis Marineris canyon, producing asteroids, comets and some moons. Have you been able to review that theory and find it largely correct or incorrect?

Does anyone have comments on the video?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4411
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Mon Nov 24, 2014 7:14 am

Lloyd wrote:Alien Sky video #3

I'll respond to this on the Most Thorough Model thread, since I really don't know what this thread is about anymore. ;)
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Aristarchus » Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:38 pm

Lloyd wrote:At the beginning there you say the solar wind slows at the heliopause and turns inward and the interstellar ions increase 100 times and the magnetic field increases too.


No. I did not say that. What I did, was, document and source data of what was discovered by Voyager 1 as it left the solar system. CC is on record of not wanting to look at that data, so what purpose does it serve to simply accept CC's premise that we can simply accept data found by probes nearer the Sun and Earth? Are you stating that this is not the case on CC's part? Anything can prove logical if we accept the premise. I'm baffled as to why the CC team continues to dictate the course of the discussion. I'm not playing that game.

As stated before, new probes will need to be designed, and the corresponding paradigm for which the mission details are set to measure the data that will play a crucial function for the paradigm and theories. Seriously, how can anyone here have obtained a PhD level in physics not have read or an understanding of Kuhn's work.

Lloyd wrote:Do you have info on the makeup, density and charge of the solar wind at that point? And do you have figures also on the interstellar ions? Because it seems necessary to know what figure is having a 100 fold increase in the opposite direction.CC posted a graph earlier that showed that the solar wind has very few free protons by the time it reaches Earth's orbit, so it seems that the solar wind should be practically neutral by the time it reaches the heliopause.


Really? Based off CC's graph? I'm here to validate CC's model? Are you using this manufactured premise to support the idea of why CC only refers to data nearer the Sun and Earth? NASA is still measuring the data. They are using a combination of the Voyager data and the IBEX. It's not completed. What NASA does is, it takes the data and comports it to the data that is inferred within the current model. Do I agree with NASA? No. Scott has a new paradigm, and that means a new set of mission details for the observations. Is it that Scott and Thornhill are correct? We don't know, because there hasn't been a paradigm shift. CC chooses to ignore data that might not comport to his model. He has no evidence for his theory on the layers in his positing of the layers of the Sun, not even a legend to the image he linked.

I requested that this discussion be sent somewhere to a thread like NIAMI, and what I find is a title: Aristarchus vs. Chandler, which denotes a certain amount of cynicism on his part. This goes on with CC's declaration of here's my model, and here's a bunch of links from my page, now anyone can ask him questions. And after CC and his fan club then complain that they can't follow the concatenation of the discussion, it's little wonder, since everything must be filtered through the eyes of CC's model. Meanwhile, CC hardly, if ever, quotes Scott, but rather, he tells us what Scott states and where he is wrong - again a poor attempt on CC's part to appeal to his own authority. I quote what Scott states, and provide accompanying links for the reader to peruse. Then, CC tries to qualify what I quoted Scott as stating, such as the "random electric current" without him realizing, or perhaps ignoring, that to read Scott's paper it presupposes that the reader is familiar with the ideas presented within. Although, this is another example of CC when he he tries to explain based of Scott's model that the Sun would be tubular not spherical, ignoring Scott explaining how this acts on a spherical model.

Now, I'll probably get the responses of why not get back on topic. The topic was left off at the Diffusion current and the Brownian motion, but instead I get from CC and his fan club the confused foreigner pretending he/she doesn't know English in an effort not to comply or understand.

However, start doing your own research. I've quoted verbatim what Scott and Thornhill have stated in papers. If you wanted to started do a comparison, do your research. I have access to databases and can send the full-texts to you via email.

And yes, I will proceed with this topic whether CC or yourself, or the rest of the fan club decide to contribute. It matters little to me. I'm completing a chapter for my sequel to my published books with as much edits as possible to begin its promotion. I'm working on another non-fiction regarding the space agency, and have other things to do as to reiterate what has already been shown on this topic as to why CC has not received a response for his inquiry to the presenters and researchers into the EU model.

Here are some current research. If anyone wants the PDF files, they can be sent via email:

Washimi, H., Zank, G. P., Hu, Q., Tanaka, T., Munakata, K., & Shinagawa, H. (2010). The Dynamic Outer Heliosphere and Preliminary Analysis of GCR Trajectories. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1302(1), 31-36. doi:10.1063/1.3529986

...

Scientific Payload for an Interstellar Probe Mission

R. A. Mewaldt1 , P. C. Liewer2, and the Interstellar Probe Science and Technology Definition
Team*

1 California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125
2 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109

...

Möbius, E., Klecker, B., Bochsler, P., Gloeckler, G., Kucharek, H., Simunac, K. C., & ... Wurz, P. (2010). He Pickup Ions in the Inner Heliosphere-Diagnostics of the Local Interstellar Gas and of Interplanetary Conditions. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1302(1), 37-43. doi:10.1063/1.3529987
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison
User avatar
Aristarchus
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests