Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

[CharlesChandler]

BTW, how do you compensate for the missing neutrinos for an internal ignited Sun. You see, when the quantitative analysis doesn't match the observations. If it is now detected by oscillations, i.e., cheating to replace observation with something that is merely inference. Please explain.

Ah -- physics!!!

Taken at face value, the neutrino count from the Sun indicates that nuclear fusion only accounts for 1/3 of the Sun's power. So they modified quantum mechanics, to say that neutrinos can change flavor on their way to us, from electron neutrinos to tau or muon neutrinos, which are very difficult to detect. Thus there might have been 3/3 of the requirement inside the Sun, but our instruments only pick up 1/3 of the expected electron neutrinos, and the other 2/3 are now tau or muon neutrinos. Supposedly, neutrino oscillation has actually been measured. But I don't understand how this helps. If the neutrinos are oscillating back and forth between flavors, how does that alter the counts -- the population in each flavor should stay the same, is that correct?

Anyway, neutrinos are very difficult to study, and I'm questioning the confidence with which the "neutrino problem" has been dismissed by the mainstream. So I'm sticking with the face-value numbers, which attribute 1/3 of the Sun's power to nuclear fusion. I then attribute the other 2/3 to arc discharges at the Sun's surface.

Fröhlich, C.; Lean, J., 2004: Solar Radiative Output and its Variability: Evidence and Mechanisms. Astronomy & Astrophysics Review, 12: 273-320

Koshiba, M., 2003: Nobel Lecture: Birth of neutrino astrophysics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75 (3): 1011-1020

McDonald, A. B.; Klein, J. R.; Wark, D. L., 2003: Solving the Solar Neutrino Problem. Scientific American, 288 (4): 40-49

Furthermore, I don't believe that any nuclear fusion at all is occurring in the core of the Sun. The reason is that I believe that the core is populated by very heavy elements (i.e., osmium and platinum) that simply are not going to fuse into anything heavier. But fusion has been detected near the surface, in solar flares. The relativistic velocities achieved by electrons in arc discharges can instantaneously create the temperatures and pressures necessary for fusion, via inertial confinement only. So I'm of the opinion that 2/3 of the solar power comes from near-surface arc discharges, and the other 1/3 comes from near-surface nuclear fusion, which is caused by the near-surface arc discharges.

Mozina, M.; Ratcliffe, H.; Manuel, O., 2006: Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle. Journal of Fusion Energy, 25: 107-114

Watanabe, K. et al., 2010: G-band and Hard X-ray Emissions of the 2006 December 14 flare observed by Hinode/SOT and RHESSI. arXiv.org, 1004.4259

[Aristarchus]

Furthermore, I don't believe that any nuclear fusion at all is occurring in the core of the Sun. The reason is that I believe that the core is populated by very heavy elements (i.e., osmium and platinum) that simply are not going to fuse into anything heavier.

OK. You see why I need an abstract? D.E. Scott admits that there is some element of Nuclear fusion at play in the Sun, but not a central feature. Differentiate?

[Aristarchus]

Taken at face value, the neutrino count from the Sun indicates that nuclear fusion only accounts for 1/3 of the Sun's power. So they modified quantum mechanics, to say that neutrinos can change flavor on their way to us, from electron neutrinos to tau or muon neutrinos, which are very difficult to detect.

Evidence? Link your source beyond the rhetorical. Is CERN still operational?

[CharlesChandler]

You see why I need an abstract?

First you have to pick a topic. If I write an 8~9 sentence abstract summarizing 166 pages of text, it will be so vague as to be meaningless. I don't have just a singular epiphany. I have a framework that addresses the formation of main sequence stars, exotic stars, galaxies, and I go into considerable detail on the nature of the Sun and the Earth. Pick a topic.

D.E. Scott admits that there is some element of Nuclear fusion at play in the Sun, but not a central feature. Differentiate?

I agree with Scott that the "neutrino problem" isn't necessarily solved, and my working hypothesis is that nuclear fusion accounts for only 1/3 of the Sun's power. I go on to cite research that identifies where fusion IS occurring. To my knowledge, Scott does not. And I demonstrate an energy budget based on near-surface arc discharges that is within an order of magnitude of the observed. Scott hasn't done an energy budget. I could go on...

[D_Archer]

Just for the record: space is not an object! Therefore space can not conduct anything. So, any claim that space could conduct anything is made in error.

I second this notion.

CC is wrong.

Charles do we really have to educate you on what a conductor is?

Regards,
Daniel

[CharlesChandler]

Charles do we really have to educate you on what a conductor is?

I explained the reasoning for my position concerning the conductivity (or rather, the lack of resistance) of space, at the end of this post:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 90#p100674

Care to refute?

[D_Archer]

Just for the record: space is not an object! Therefore space can not conduct anything. So, any claim that space could conduct anything is made in error.

That's what they teach in the schools -- that the only thing that can conduct is a conductor, and it's a thing, not a nothing. Empty space is a nothing, therefore, it cannot conduct. But I disagree. As proof, consider the action of a fluorescent light. A tube is filled with a low density gas, and a voltage is applied to it, sufficient to initiate a glow discharge. As electrons hop from atom to atom, when electron uptake occurs, photons are released, lighting up the room. Now, how do electrons travel through the empty space between atoms? Clearly there is a perfect vacuum between each atom, and the distance is quite large compared to the size of the atoms themselves. If electrons were incapable of traveling through free space, the current in a fluorescent light would travel only by electron transfer on atomic collisions, meaning that the speed would be limited to the speed of sound in that gas. Yet the current actually travels at a respectable percentage of the speed of light. Therefore, those electrons are moving through empty space. A charged particle can travel through a vacuum, in precisely the same way that a neutral particle can -- there doesn't have to be a conductor there if the particle is charged. That's just ancient EE theory that got entrenched before the formulation of the modern atomic theory, and hasn't been updated since. If you're an EE, this error won't cause too many problems, since currents are generally confined to the electron clouds inside solid conductors, and you can get away with thinking that there has to be a conductor there. But when you're talking about currents in space, you're talking about charged particles moving through a lot of empty territory, and the EE concepts of conductors and resistors no longer apply, and you have to look at what is going on at the atomic level to understand it.

@Lloyd: I disagree that space is well-described as a non-material object. Here I follow Tesla, who said that space is nothingness, and therefore doesn't have any properties. So it's correct to say that space doesn't have any resistance. But rather than calling it a non-material conductor, I think that it is more straight-forward to just step down to the atomic level, and look at what the individual particles are doing to create those macroscopic level properties of conductivity and resistance.

You use a lot of words to describe radiation, which is NOT conduction. Conduction is through matter (as it is defined as such), space is not matter and ergo can not conduct (by definition).

Regards,
Daniel

[CharlesChandler]

You use a lot of words to describe radiation, which is NOT conduction.

I don't understand this. Yes, I used the example of a fluorescent light, but the important point was that electrons are traveling through a significant amount of empty space between the atoms in the plasma. The radiation was only mentioned as evidence that the electrons are definitely moving along.

Conduction is through matter (as it is defined as such), space is not matter and ergo can not conduct (by definition).

OK, then by that definition, is it possible for electrons to travel through the empty space between atoms in a plasma? Electric currents definitely travel through fluorescent lights much faster than the speed of sound. So it isn't just electron transfer on atomic collisions. This can only mean that the electrons are making the hop from atom to atom.

Some would argue that electrons cannot travel through empty space, but they do make the hop from atom to atom, via quantum tunneling. But that actually doesn't change the nature of the issue at all. The bare-faced fact is that the net speed of the electron can be calculated as a function of 1) the strength of the E-field, 2) the mass of the electron, and thus its inertial force that must be overcome, 3) the mean free path between atoms, and 4) the time lost to atomic collisions. If there has to be a quantum tunnel for the electron to make the hop, it contributes no resistance, because that doesn't show up in the calcs. Thus quantum tunnels are perfect conductors! Now, if conduction is only possible "through matter", and if those electrons are definitely making the hops from atom to atom, then quantum tunnels have to be matter. Happy now? But the net result is the same: the longer the mean free path, the less the resistance, because the resistance is coming from the atomic collisions, not from the quantum tunnels. So currents flow faster in matter that is less dense. And the implication for EU theory is that electric currents in space would prefer to flow around stars rather than through them, since currents follow the path of least resistance.

[Sparky]

I am not convinced that "space" is nothing.
What limits the speed of light, c?
What contributes to inertia?
What mediates all forces at the atomic level?

[D_Archer]

I don't understand this. Yes, I used the example of a fluorescent light, but the important point was that electrons are traveling through a significant amount of empty space between the atoms in the plasma.

Plasma is a conductor, you acknowledge that here with your example that plasma is a conductor, which is correct. You harp on empty space between atoms as if that is some magical place, but it is not important for the definition of conductance. Conductance implies materials are/matter is in play.

The radiation was only mentioned as evidence that the electrons are definitely moving along.

You never mentioned radiation. i did.

but they do make the hop from atom to atom, via quantum tunneling

Proposing quantum hogwash won't help you.

This is your point:

Now, if conduction is only possible "through matter", and if those electrons are definitely making the hops from atom to atom, then quantum tunnels have to be matter. Happy now?

I do not know where you get these tunnels from, but if they are matter than conduction is still trough matter. Plasma is also a conductor and the electrons are free to move and they follow charge paths since they are pushed by them.

And the implication for EU theory is that electric currents in space would prefer to flow around stars rather than through them, since currents follow the path of least resistance.

This indicates you do not know the EU model very well.

So far you proposed conduction in a fluorescent light, which is plasma, plasma is matter and plasma is a conductor.

Please be aware that you can not propose conduction without matter, since by definition conduction is with matter.

Regards,
Daniel

[D_Archer]

I am not convinced that "space" is nothing.
What limits the speed of light, c?
What contributes to inertia?
What mediates all forces at the atomic level?

Space is nothing by definition, it is that which is not matter.

Speed of light is limited by other matter. (pba that light is also matter).

The absence of countering forces.

Charge and gravity (as per Miles Mathis).

Regards,
Daniel

[Sparky]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... Ekj_WdibXQ

Theory has it that a vacuum is not truly empty – it is constantly roiling with tiny fluctuations that cause particles to pop in and out of existence. These particles pop up in entangled pairs and, crucially, the two partners can appear great distances apart.

The quantum field in the vacuum of space is usually at its lowest energy level. But if someone measures the field, the quantum system in that region – let's call it region A – is disturbed and becomes excited, gaining energy. Hotta suggests using the information gained from that measurement to create an electric current that is tuned to the quantum change. Because particles spread across the vacuum are entangled with each other, sending the current through another part of the vacuum – region B – will allow the current to extract energy from the quantum field in that region. In other words, particles from region A will teleport some of their energy to region B, without the need for a physical transmission line.

Space is nothing by definition, it is that which is not matter.

Constrained by semantics.

[Bomb20]

No, not semantics! We speak about logic here. Science starts with clear definitions in the scientific language, long before any experiments or mathematics. Space is nothing and therefore it is pretty clear that a kind of aether must be around.

[Sparky]

Space is nothing and therefore it is pretty clear that a kind of aether must be around.

Well, I sure do not follow that logic. Were some steps left out?

[Lloyd]

Here's an abstract for you. It took me about ten minutes to write. I've never written one before, but I've read a number of them, so I have an idea how to do it. I don't claim to be a pro.

CC's Solar Model
Abstract

Tornado studies determined that Earth's negative electric charge and charge separation between the upper atmosphere's positive charge drives tornado formation and motion. This successful finding led to application of evidence of a similar charge separation model to the features of the Sun, as well as other phenomena. The photosphere, which is a gaseous plasma less dense than Earth's atmosphere at sea level, has a sharp boundary at its surface, which can only be the result of the electric force, as gravity only would result in a gradually decreasing density with altitude, instead of an abrupt drop-off in density, as at the chromosphere-photosphere boundary. Exhaustive analysis led to the conclusion that the photosphere is a negatively charged plasma held down by a positive plasma just below the photosphere. These constitute current-free double layers, CFDLs, which appear to be the natural end-product of accretion in giant molecular clouds, which develop weak charge separation before accretion begins. A complete model of the "cathode Sun" is elaborated herein, with explanations of every major feature of the Sun. The electric force is found to be the primary shaper of nearly all of the Sun's features. This model is also well adaptable to other phenomena in the universe.