Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

[CharlesChandler]

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

And what are the properties of the aether? Aside from length, width, and height, and the ability to transmit forces such as gravity and EM fields, it doesn't have any properties. Resistance certainly isn't one of them. (So I guess that means that conductivity IS.) Anyway, I'm not making this stuff up. In gases and plasmas, the conductivity varies directly with the mean free path, and currents flow more easily through less dense matter. For example, here are the data from a Gerdien cylinder (which measures conductivity) that was attached to a rocket and launched into the atmosphere. Aside from some flaky data in the stratosphere, where the chemical composition of the atmosphere changes, the resistance varied quite precisely with the density of the air (i.e., the conductivity varied inversely with the density). At 12 km above the surface, the mho was 3 times greater than at the surface. And at 12 km, the density of the air is 1/3 of that at the surface.

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/C ... de_wbg.png

Wåhlin, L., 1989: Atmospheric Electricity. New York: Research Studies Press (John Wiley & Sons)

[CharlesChandler]

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.

Nicely done.

[kiwi]

Quantum tunnelling

Didnt Doc Robataille slay that with the Kirchoff--->Planck de-construction

Back to some basics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hstum3U2zw


Sparky

ever read this? http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0117v1.pdf

I think it was Lloyd who invited PMR onto the forum to defend his work on the CMB a year or 2 back?

Remember his reply? ......... I do

[CharlesChandler]

Quantum tunnelling

Didnt Doc Robataille slay that with the Kirchoff--->Planck de-construction

For those who didn't read my post carefully, I don't find quantum tunneling to be a useful construct, in any of the conditions in which it is invoked. It's just a way of evading the problems in QM. So they go, "Here are the rules, and here are all of the exceptions, so here is a way for things to get past the rules, and we're going to build it into the construct, and if nobody is paying attention, nobody will realize that those really aren't rules anymore -- they're all just ad hoc rationalizations is a self-contradicting, counter-intuitive framework. Anybody who analyzes this critically will get confused, but if we stick to our story with a straight face, they'll eventually conclude that we are so much smarter than they are, that they will never understand, and that will be a Good Thing."

By the same token, if you define a conductor as some sort of material object, and you observe that electrons can travel through empty space to get from one atom to the next, you have no choice but to say that empty space is a form of matter, whether it's aether, or a network of quantum tunnels, or whatever else. But that's just bastardizing one's concept of space to preserve one's definition of a conductor. If you're willing to redefine space, you ought to be willing to at least consider the possibility that conductors can be redefined, simply as the absence of resistance. Matter can resist the flow of charged particles. Some materials pose more resistance than others. But the absence of matter poses no resistance, to the flow of charged particles or neutral particles, for the same reason -- there is nothing there to get in the way.

[kiwi]

The comment wasnt directed at you Charles .... Its still considered feasible by many though who defend the MS view...and as such I just saw a gap in the traffic to show how what are thought under-pinning proofs are actually fallacious

But that's just bastardizing one's concept of space to preserve one's definition of a conductor.

Have you read Dayton Millers work? ... interesting stuff

*Robert S. Shankland, former student of Dayton Miller and Chairman of the Physics Department at Case Western Reserve University. Shankland's academic career soared after he organized a post-mortem on Miller's work, pronouncing it worthless, and after Einstein later granted him a series of widely-published interviews. Shankland subsequently became a bureaucrat within the emerging atomic energy infrastructure.

Intimate with Einstein, in a 1981 interview Shankland claimed Miller's work on ether-drift had probably cost Einstein the Nobel Prize for relativity theory (Einstein did later get a Nobel Prize, but for his other theoretical work). Just before Miller's death in 1941, he entrusted his extensive data archive on ether-drift experiments performed since the early 1900s to Shankland, to include over 300 data sheets from his extensive Mt. Wilson experiments, plus many experimental notebooks. All of this material vanished under Shankland's care.


(Postscript, September 2002: After publication of this article in Pulse of the Planet #5 and on internet, suggesting the destruction of Miller's data by R.S. Shankland, and with pressure from this author to various Case Western Reserve Univeristy professors and officials to more intensively search for Miller's original data sheets, they finally resurfaced within the CSWRU Physics Department, and were subsequently transferred to the CWRU Archives.)*

I will have to find the link...

Please do not pre-judge the information on the basis of its source.... the data can be checked... I just enjoyed this review

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." — Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)

"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
— Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Cheers

[Aristarchus]

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.

Nicely done.

I agree. Very nicely done, Lloyd. Thank you. This gives me some meat and potatoes to work with regarding Charles model. See Charles? The operation was painless, and we'll all feel better in the morning for it. However, Charles, Lloyd has supplied a caveat that is going to go through some serious challenge: "This model is also well adaptable to other phenomena in the universe." Think Occam's Razor.

I was beginning to feel like Chris Farley in Almost Heroes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQkGn9AI8ms

[CharlesChandler]

I just saw a gap in the traffic to show how what are thought under-pinning proofs are actually fallacious

Indeed! No worries.

[Aristarchus]

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.

Fair enough. Although you do need further quantitative analysis to resolve this 2/3 arc discharge to make up the difference. You've shown us some of that analysis on this topic, but it is very targeted to one particular premise from the overall premise. If you plug in some more "formulas," I would like my wife to look at those. She's PhD in Operations Research. Don't worry, Charles, she'll be objective, actually bias toward your positing, since she's more or less someone more comfortable with the consensus science that you use.

I believe everything's conceptual, and this is why I inquired about your definition of electricity. Our understanding of science today is based off cultural paradigms, and when a culture moves into its civilization phase it collapses, and a new culture arises with a new scientific conception with new paradigms. I'm dismayed that David Bohm was not successful in producing a language that was totally verb oriented. Whenever you think you see something and name it, it's not really there. It's just a name that you applied to it, and thus the name contradicts the spin. It's only a motion - spin - and science is just a freeze frame

With that said, my question to you is that the neutrino question regarding the Sun is the measure of the sunlight on the Earth. How does your model address this?

[Aristarchus]

So ... what is electricity?

http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html

Below are the five most common meanings of the word Electricity. Which one do you think is right? Think about this carefully, because if one of these meanings is correct, all the others must be wrong! After all, no "science term" must ever possess several conflicting definitions. Unfortunately our dictionaries and encyclopedias contain all of these contradictions. (Click the links to find out more about each.)

1. The scientist's definition: "Electricity" means only one thing: quantities of electricity are measured in Coulombs, so "electricity" is the electrons and protons themselves; the electric charge inside the wires, and not the flow.
Examples: CURRENT OF ELECTRICITY. QUANTITY OF ELECTRICITY. COULOMBS OF ELECTRICITY.
2. The everyday definition: "Electricity" means only one thing: the electromagnetic field energy sent out by batteries and generators.
Examples: PRICE OF ELECTRICITY. KILOWATT-HOURS OF ELECTRICITY.
3. The grade-school definition: "Electricity" means only one thing: it refers to the flow of electrons, the flowing motion of electric charge.
Examples: "CURRENT" ELECTRICITY. AMPERES OF ELECTRICITY.
4. "Electricity" means only one thing: it refers to the amount of imbalance between quantities of electrons and protons.
Example: "STATIC" ELECTRICITY. DISCHARGE OF ELECTRICITY.
5. "Electricity" is nothing other than the classes of phenomena involving electric charges.
Examples: BIOELECTRICITY, PIEZOELECTRICITY, TRIBOELECTRICITY, THERMOELECTRICITY, ATMOSPHERIC ELECTRICITY ...ETC.
6. Other less common definitions:
"Electricity" refers to the flowing motion of electrical energy (electric power, Watts of electricity)
"Electricity" really means the electric potential or e-field (Volts of electricity)
"Electricity" only means the glowing nitrogen/oxygen plasma (sparks of electricity)
"Electricity" is nothing but a field of science (Basic Electricity, Advanced Electricity)

[CharlesChandler]

Although you do need further quantitative analysis to resolve this 2/3 arc discharge to make up the difference.

Here I'll simply direct you to the page on my website that answers the question, since it has the images, references, and numbers with superscripts, which are a pain to properly format in a forum post:

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9289

With that said, my question to you is that the neutrino question regarding the Sun is the measure of the sunlight on the Earth. How does your model address this?

I don't understand. From the neutrino count, we can estimate the nuclear fusion going on. From that, we can estimate the power that should be coming out. At face value (i.e., without altering QM to make the problem go away), the power is only 1/3 of the actual. So my model explains what produces the other 2/3. Did that answer the question?

So ... what is electricity?

"Electricity" is a vague term, so I don't use it much. The fundamental force at work is the electric force, measured in volts, which is unambiguous.

[Aristarchus]

Here I'll simply direct you to the page on my website that answers the question, since it has the images, references, and numbers with superscripts, which are a pain to properly format in a forum post:

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9289

I'll look at it. Still going through your other document. I found you consistent before the fact regarding neutrinos with what I read in your monograph, and I appreciate that, and I think we owe much thanks to Lloyd for providing us with a summary of your work that I can understand. I still have questions, but I think others will bow out because I think the intuitive process is important, and you and others might not appreciate that. No matter whether I agree with you - you're honest as far as that goes with your comment on neutrinos both here on the forum and in your paper.

I like Scott's work, because it is holistic. He might not like that I place it into those terms, but there has to be an interconnectivity. Let's say, as a point of reference, I accept your model, I still need to see an external source from the galactic. Let me propose, not that I adhere to it, but that there is an internal ignition for the Sun reliant on an external maximum that is repetitive of the former?

I'll explain this later, but would if there is an incorporation of your model and Scott's, I still have to insist where the hell is this nuclear fusion? You both allow the latter to exist as a component in the Sun model, but where, and by what metrics?

Charles, I like the direction that has taken place for this topic, but I still have to be an assh*le, because something just doesn't jive for me.

[D_Archer]

Where we are.

Summarizing CC:
1. space is an electrical conductor
2. the Sun is a cathode (receiving power from stored accretion energy)
3. the universe is ectrostatic

1. destroyed already
2. thread Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 10&t=10457
3. ? nothing is static in the universe, static electricity isn't even static.

About 2. I missed the last posts from the other Daniel (sorry Daniel ). But he makes good points and Charles in the end just refuses to see them.

Lloyd said:

it might be best not to use the terms anode or cathode

In the end this would be smartest thing, so point 2 should be dropped. Reality is either simpler in the long term and/or more complicated in the short term. And at least this can not be discussed seriously with Charles.

When we get more experimental data (ie SAFIRE) this point (nr2) could be raised again.

---

So we are left with, what is electricity?. And: electricity comes from a galactic source (EU) or the sun is wholly internally powered (CC and the popes of science). I want to add that a wholly internally powered sun is the old 'fire in the sky' adagium, it is our first instinct, should we fight it? Or should we clarify it...because fire also has en external source... ie heat.

Regards,
Daniel

[Aristarchus]

I don't understand. From the neutrino count, we can estimate the nuclear fusion going on. From that, we can estimate the power that should be coming out. At face value (i.e., without altering QM to make the problem go away), the power is only 1/3 of the actual. So my model explains what produces the other 2/3. Did that answer the question?

Both you and Scott admit to the nuclear fusion taking place - but where the hell is it? Forgive, I'm not trying to be glib, but something just doesn't jive in what either of you propose. Hydrogen is being converted into helium. Two neutrinos occur at each fusion process. We're told that these neutrinos are escaping "easily" from the Sun, but not necessarily appearing as "solar heat" or "sunlight."

Oh-kay! Where is the 1/3 outside of the solar heat and/or sunlight? I'm sorry if I'm off on the tangent, but I just don't see the metrics adding up. It's ad hoc. Let me try it this way, and please be patient: How much of the 1/3 is not appearing as solar heat or sunlight? Does this make sense?

[CharlesChandler]

I still need to see an external source from the galactic.

Ummm... are you going to provide a quantitative analysis for that?

I still have to insist where the hell is this nuclear fusion?

Here is what I said earlier on that:

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

Remnants of nuclear fusion have even been detected as a consequence of lightning strikes here on Earth. When the relativistic electrons slam into the ambient air at the end of the stepped leaders, the instantaneous increase in temperature and pressure fuses hydrogen (stripped out of water vapor molecules) into neutrons and deuterium. You need a bigger arc than that to follow through, to actually get some helium out of it. And there is nowhere near enough energy to fuse heavier elements, such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, as we see in the Sun. But this is a well-known process.

3. the universe is ectrostatic

3. ? nothing is static in the universe, static electricity isn't even static.

To be more specific, my work starts by identifying the electric forces at play, and then I demonstrate their influence. The EU considers the driving E-fields to be unknowable, and simply sees how many things can be shown to resemble electric currents. So they start with electrodynamics (but without knowing the current densities, because they don't know the E-fields), while I start with electrostatics, and then I calculate the current densities.

When we get more experimental data (ie SAFIRE) this point (nr2) could be raised again.

The SAFIRE presentation by Paul Anderson stated that the design of the test apparatus is proprietary. Without knowing the specs for the apparatus, we have no way of reviewing the data. And that means that the data cannot be introduced into a formal debate.

How much of the 1/3 is not appearing as solar heat or sunlight?

The neutrino count, being 1/3 of the expectation, is an energy analysis. If all of the nuclear fusion produces energy that gets converted to heat/light, and if all of the neutrinos from the fusion are being properly detected, fusion can only account for 1/3 of the total power output of the Sun.

[Sparky]

Kiwi"

Sparky

ever read this? http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0117v1.pdf

I think it was Lloyd who invited PMR onto the forum to defend his work on the CMB a year or 2 back?

Remember his reply? ......... I do

A very cryptic post! Any point you would like to make?

((((((((((((*********************************************

Below are the five most common meanings of the word Electricity. Which one do you think is right? Think about this carefully, because if one of these meanings is correct, all the others must be wrong! After all, no "science term" must ever possess several conflicting definitions.

What fallacious nonsense! All terms, used in context , can be correct! And since you supply only similar definitions, how are they conflicting?

Your muddled, babbling posts indicate no or little understanding of EU. Have your standard theory deluded wife post for you. Maybe her style of muddled, babbling will make more sense.