Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

[antosarai]

But what are the two sides specifically debating?

You've read it and didn't find out?

Why are you interested then?

[David]

But what are the two sides specifically debating?

You've read it and didn't find out?

What I found was a generous supply of long winded commentary, spanning multiple topics; one of which is apparently off-topic (or so I'm told).

[nick c]

David,
The title is somewhat misleading. This forum is not set up to be a venue for formal debates.
That being said, the focus of this thread is on two solar models: an externally powered Electric Sun (advocated by Aristarchus) versus an internally powered electric Sun (advocated by Charles Chandler).

[Aristarchus]

OK, so show me that the instruments that would have detected sunward electrons weren't switched on until Voyager got into the heliopause.

Why would I do that? I never made the argument that anything was switched on or off. You suggested that was the argument that was made by those disagreeing with you. Now you want to force the discussion on your terms. I guess if you misconstrue what your interlocutor has stated, and then force the discussion to revolve around your premise - meh - how can you lose. Right?

What has to look at are the mission details and what the instruments were calibrated and set to observe:

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

The PLS consists of four Faraday cup detectors, which measure ion and electron currents in the energy range of 10 to 5,950 electron Volts. 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.

Voyager was measuring the solar wind and then the the electrons impact on the planets listed on its mission detail sheet. The measuring of the data was based on the existing understanding of the solar wind. However, this changed when the probe reached the stagnation region, just beyond the termination shock. The latter being where the solar wind decreases to zero. Before that, all was well and good based off the observations and mission details designed into the setup of the instruments, although even that provided new discoveries.

It was when probes encountered data past the design meant to measure the solar wind that it provided information that did not correspond to the existing theories, such has the amount of highly-charged particles. And what I quoted before demonstrates that it took the researchers to pour through the data because they could not make sense of it based on their current model and understanding of it. What do you think is meant by "through 2010?" The data just doesn't arrive and ergo conclusions are reached, but rather, the data is looked at and filtered according to the paradigm behind the positing of theories. D. E. Scott proposes a new way of calculating the information of electrons flowing to the Sun, but NASA has not made any new major paradigm shifts to revisit the issue. Although, in later a post I will show how the consensus science is trying to incorporate an electric universe model - or hinting at it - without relinquishing the accepted models and theories, which means even more new theories that will burden the existing paradigm setting it up for its collapse. Sound familiar? The Ptolemy solar system?

http://news.discovery.com/space/voyager ... 121030.htm

Then, in 2010, the probe crossed into a stagnation region just beyond the termination shock known as the “heliosheath” — this is where the solar wind slows to zero and the magnetic field becomes compressed and begins to fluctuate.

According to theory, as the magnetic field begins to fluctuate, the number of high-energy cosmic rays should decrease inside the heliosheath — charged cosmic rays entering the solar system should become scattered by the magnetic fluctuations, decreasing the number of detections by Voyager 1. Looking at data through 2010, the researchers actually found the opposite to be true — as the magnetic field became more chaotic, the number of high-energy particles increased.

In fact, my understanding is that what Voyager 1 experienced was unique, and Voyager 2 found its own unique observations. Wonder why the researchers cannot make these comport with each. Oh, they will, but it will be more ad hoc kludge explanations.

[CharlesChandler]

It was when probes encountered data past the design meant to measure the solar wind that it provided information that did not correspond to the existing theories, such has the amount of highly-charged particles.

So the same instruments, pointed in the same direction, started picking up highly-charged particles in the heliopause, which were not detected until they got to the heliopause, and this proves that the highly-charged particles are making it all of the way to the Sun? It just goes to show you that people see what they want to see.

Analogously, suppose we were measuring temperature, and we have something that is hot, and you are saying that the source of the heat is external to the object. So we take readings with a thermometer, starting at the object, and moving away from it, we get readings like this:

hot - warm - cold - cold - cold - cold - cold - cold - cold - warm - hot

And because the laws of thermodynamics didn't predict the heat at the far end, this proves that the test object is being heated externally? In your mind, maybe. And your "proof" is that the existing paradigm didn't predict the actual measurements. (That's a false dichotomy, but whatever.) What you apparently cannot be forced to acknowledge is that this begs the question of how the heat made it all of the way through the cold region -- which we measured with precisely the same thermometer. If you realized the problem here, you'd either be talking about some novel theory about heat conduction that would enable this, or you'd acknowledge that YOUR expectations were not met. But you won't even acknowledge the problem.

If you detect an electric current at Point A, and also at Point B, and your hypothesis is that the same current flows through both Point A and Point B, and you use the same instrument to test for current at the mid-point between A and B, and you detect nothing, YOUR expectations have not been met. If you were faithful to the data, you'd acknowledge that your hypothesis has a problem.

And then, of course, there is the problem that Scott's model actually never predicted any increase in current at the heliopause. The reason is that it is an integral part of Scott's model that the current density relaxes with distance from the Sun. This is a necessary component, since long before we got Voyager data from the heliopause, we had a lot of data from the inner solar system, and beyond 10 AU, no current was detected. To preserve his model, he then had to say that the current is there, but it's too weak to measure. And falling off with the cube of the distance, the current density should simply continue to get weaker and weaker. Thus Scott's prediction (had he made one) would have been that the Voyager data would have shown a whole lot of nothing at the heliopause. Of course, when surprising results came back, he leveraged the false dichotomy into a theoretical triumph. But in no sense is an enhanced current density in the heliopause a self-consistent prediction of Scott's model.

[Lloyd]

I suppose EU fans think the measurements between points A and B haven't been taken at enough different solar system latitudes to rule out a connection between points A and B, i.e. the solar surface (A) and the heliopause (B). Also, they seem to suspect possible falsification of data.

So the data points might be kind of like this:
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A______Voyager 1 path___________ B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A______Voyager 2 path___________ B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B

The diagram shows that 9 paths out of 11 haven't been sampled. Maybe they'd be satisfied if someone will show them that many or most of the remaining latitudes have been sampled by Ulysses and possibly other spacecraft. Are other satellites besides Ulysses known to have covered higher latitudes?

[Aristarchus]

So the same instruments, pointed in the same direction, started picking up highly-charged particles in the heliopause, which were not detected until they got to the heliopause, and this proves that the highly-charged particles are making it all of the way to the Sun?

That is not what I stated at all. Why do you continue to try to make my argument for me? Do I really have to labor the point to such an extent for you just to understand the basic premise? Pointed into the same direction? What? As the solar wind? What? The three panels that were designed according to the mission details?

According to the paradigm, the solar wind reaches zero, but once Voyager passed that point - "just beyond the termination shock" - it encountered a new phase to its mission, one that discovered something outside its mission statement that did not comport with the current theories.

I'll pick this up later. I mean, really? BTW, you should distinguish between evidence and proof. You keep ignoring this argument. And now Lloyd is left explaining the difference to terms he introduced; omniscience and 100%. Are you guys for real? None of us on the other side of the aisle ever mentioned such terms. Lloyd intoduced these terms, and now is arguing with himself. You guys are shadow boxing. NASA and any well-respected scientific methodology looks inwards and accepts new data.

NASA and the consensus science has never measured the influx of incoming electrons toward the Sun, and since you established that the data from nearer the Earth and Sun is enough, signifies that you ignore a new model. Charles, you don't have a new model - you have a mess - a concoction - a fantasy. You impress the gullible - those that want to be spoon fed. They want to be impressed. They lack an intuitive processing of information.

It just goes to show you that people see what they want to see.

Exactly, and you present the best evidence for this:

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.

Wow. The one's that expound scientific methodology, are the one's that ignore it. <sigh> I'm going to listen to music. CC's model as a serious component? Un-believable.

[Aristarchus]

So the data points might be kind of like this:
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A______Voyager 1 path___________ B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A______Voyager 2 path___________ B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B

What is this crap above?

Why the energetic particles are different at Voyager 1 and 2?

http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/study/scien ... SotGLE.pdf

[antosarai]

So the data points might be kind of like this:
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A______Voyager 1 path___________ B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A______Voyager 2 path___________ B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B

What is this crap above?

A cerebral density evaluation?

[Lloyd]

If you want to refer to my diagram as crap, then you can talk to yourself here. I'm done.

[CharlesChandler]

So the data points might be kind of like this:
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A______Voyager 1 path___________ B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A______Voyager 2 path___________ B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B
A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B

What is this crap above?

He was illustrating the fact that the heliosphere is a big place compared to the small number of tiny satellites that have probed it. It's a legitimate point. And to my knowledge, ULYSSES was the only satellite that got off of the ecliptic plane. So I acknowledge that an absence of evidence of an external electric current doesn't disprove the ES hypothesis.

[D_Archer]

So I acknowledge that an absence of evidence of an external electric current doesn't disprove the ES hypothesis.

Took you long enough. How many words spend on such a simple point to grasp?

Regards,
Daniel

[CharlesChandler]

So I acknowledge that an absence of evidence of an external electric current doesn't disprove the ES hypothesis.

Took you long enough. How many words spend on such a simple point to grasp?

Regards,
Daniel

I acknowledged that a long time ago. Do you acknowledge that absence of evidence is even an issue to be noted? And do you acknowledge that such is not even the most serious issue with the ES model? I have raised some very serious questions, especially concerning Scott's model. I have posted the full list twice on this thread alone. I can repost them if you want me to. I have been asking these questions for years now, and there has been no attempt to answer them. Basically, Scott's PNP configuration in the photosphere and chromosphere just isn't going to work. Does that matter?

[Lloyd]

CC said: Basically, Scott's PNP configuration in the photosphere and chromosphere just isn't going to work. Does that matter?

Since you mentioned it, you ought to provide a few more details, so readers understand your doubts, if you have the time. Like which layers do Scott identify with P, N, and P (pos, neg, pos)? And why can't they work? Why is your PNPNP model better?

[Aristarchus]

He was illustrating the fact that the heliosphere is a big place compared to the small number of tiny satellites that have probed it. It's a legitimate point. And to my knowledge, ULYSSES was the only satellite that got off of the ecliptic plane. So I acknowledge that an absence of evidence of an external electric current doesn't disprove the ES hypothesis.

CC, I'm only giving you sources that identify what the mission details were for Voyager 1 and then offered an addendum as what was discovered by Voyager 2. Voyager 1 had three panels directed toward the solar wind, and the fourth panel was to measure activity on the planets. It was not part of the mission detail of Voyager 1 to seek out incoming electrons. Once the mission details were completed by Voyager 1 within the solar system NASA determined where the solar wind decreased to zero, but it was then that the mission details changed for Voyager to data gathered beyond what NASA calls the termination shock. It was here that Voyager 1 encountered something not conceived of by the current model, and that was the increase of highly charged particles coming from interstellar space:

Any hypothetical electric input must then provide a power of 4x1026 watts. Juergens posited that the Sun's cathode drop is of the order of 1010 volts. In that event, the total power input divided by that voltage is 4x1016 amperes. The velocity of the interstellar winds is estimated5 at 200 – 1000 km/s. This is in the range 2x105 and 106 m/s. So let us suppose that the effective velocity of a typical interstellar electron is at least 105 m/s.

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).

http://electric-cosmos.org/SolarElecFlux2013.pdf

This calculation makes it clear that it is not reasonable to conclude that there are not enough electrons entering the Sun’s environment to power it. In fact, in light of the new NASA data, it is now possible to reduce our estimate of the Sun’s voltage to ~ 1010/16,000 = 0.5 million volts = 500 kV which, relatively speaking, is not extremely large. There are commercial transmission lines here on Earth using higher voltages6.

NASA proposes new theories to fit the old paradigm to explain the data from Voyager 1 & 2 from the interstellar wind. Scott proposes a new paradigm to begin investigation of the data from Voyager 1 & 2 regarding the interstellar medium. And you choose to ignore the data from Voyager 1 & 2 regarding the interstellar medium, stating the those probes nearer the Sun and Earth are sufficient for concluding activity of the Sun. As I stated before, the Ptolemy solar system could have gone on for years if not for the inclusion of a paradigm shift.

A ‘tipping point’ in science is supposed to happen when the weight of evidence against a theory tips the balance of opinion against it. But we are dazzled in this space age by computer-generated ‘virtual reality’ and the sheer technological brilliance of applied science. So it can come as a surprise to be told that modern theoretical science is in crisis. Today’s inverted science pyramid rests on the mathematics of imaginary particles and energy described by an acausal quantum theory that no one can explain.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/eu-view/