Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

[Sparky]

There are 2 links above about solar inflows from Charles.

I didn't understand what was being talked about..
Need less technical paper....

[CharlesChandler]

There are 2 links above about solar inflows from Charles.

I didn't understand what was being talked about..
Need less technical paper....

The second link was less technical:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 162617.htm

[Aristarchus]

Why would someone write six postings over a span of five hours just to ask everybody wait?

Because it masks the drive-by's...

Yes, it is terribly shocking to you and your fan club that one would not divulge a tremendous amount of time and energy to your "detailed analysis" and scientific revelation. Or that someone posts five to six non-essentials posts while this same person is listening to music and practicing dry triggering. Evidently, I have not realized the gravitas, implications, and import of your research. Actually, I believe it was four posts by me. One was an accidental re-post. One was was one sentence. One was explaining that I was doing something at my own leisure. Hey, maybe it was more, but you see the game of misrepresentation and the continued avoidance and dismissive on your part - and the fan club - some of which I suspect are purposely here to support your roughshod tone.

In fact, you spent several paragraphs on my setup post then you did regarding the positing and research I posted regarding D. E. Scott.

Here's a what I mean: Charles, here is an example of a drive by, avoidance, and dismissal ... wait ... I'm going to have a smoke ... I'll be back ...

Where was I? Oh yeah, your avoidance and dismissal:

If the Sun was powered by galactic currents, the discharge wouldn't be just from the Sun to the heliopause -- it would be from the Sun out into the interstellar medium, and beyond. To drive such a current, we'd have to be in an electric field, so I'd really expect just one incoming and one outgoing discharge channel. The Sun wouldn't be a sphere -- it would be a tube. Anyway, I don't know where to begin with something so unrealistic.

There's your premise. My response to that ... quoting D. E. Scott:

The cylindrical shape of the typical laboratory plasma discharge tube is quite different from the spherical shape of the plasma surrounding the Sun. One purpose of this paper is to investigate the analytic consequences of that spherical geometry.

Your response, which was really a dismissal, was the following:

Anybody can copy equations out of a book. But where did he use those equations to calculate real forces, and then compare the calculated forces with the observations, as I have done, with dusty plasma collapses, as well as with the solar energy budget?

This is completely ignoring Scott’s premise. Scott is not simply copying and pasting equations out of a book. The observations are based and concluded upon the theories and the theories are based upon the paradigm. Scott is proposing a new paradigm along with theories; ergo, those equations you're referring to are applied specifically along with the new theories in the EU model.

For example:

This is not to say that quasi-neutrality is strictly adhered to in all regions within the solar plasmasphere. It clearly is not. Maxwell’s equations can be used in limited and well-defined ways – especially in those regions of non-quasi-neutrality.

Scott broke down those equations into eleven steps, so your copy and paste statement appeared to gloss over the obvious without too much credence or thought provided. You can engage in obfuscation ad nauseam. When we've discussed evidence from Voyager 1 regarding the heliosphere, you refused to address it, claiming that observations from nearer the Sun and Earth were enough. This struck me as odd coming from someone like you supposedly coming from a scientific background.

Ironically, several years back on this forum, there was discussion that Scott or the EU model did not have enough quantitative analysis. Now, when the latter is supplied, it is merely copying and pasting equations, even though the paper gives a thorough breakdown of those equations and what they are to be applied to.

I think stating that you're a voice of dissent is a misnomer. I believe you roughshod your model at the expense of ignoring anything from your interlocutor. You seriously cannot see why someone from the EU academics does not respond to you for debate?

[JeffreyW]

You seriously cannot see why someone from the EU academics does not respond to you for debate?

Well EU ignores solids, liquids and gases. There goes the Earth! EU supporters are standing on nothing apparently!

[Lloyd]

Aristarchus said: Yes, it is terribly shocking to you and your fan club that one would not divulge a tremendous amount of time and energy to your "detailed analysis" and scientific revelation.

I assume that divulge is a typo there and is supposed to say devote. Maybe you're being sarcastic in saying that we must be shocked by your and others' disinterest in CC's model's detailed analysis etc. I don't think CC is any more shocked than I am, and I don't find it shocking, just disappointing that few readers show much interest so far. I get the impression that you're often trying to use derogatory terms to describe CC and his model and his supporters. As a librarian, do you find that approach to be typical scientific process? I consider it to be anti-scientific myself and is partly to blame for the mess that science has become.

When you point out CC's errors or potential errors, that's what I consider real scientific process. I hope you will refrain from the former, i.e. sarcasm etc, and stick more with the latter, revealing errors and oversights, relevant data etc. If you succeed in showing that CC has made serious errors in his model, I will readily abandon any seemingly inferior model in favor of a superior one, just as I did when I abandoned the official EU model in favor of CC's about 2 years ago. I'm always willing to go back to a model I abandoned, if I find that my reasons were wrong. I think CC will also prefer to support superior models, even it he finds his is not that.

You seem to be saying now that the EU model brings in a new paradigm that does away with wrong assumptions in conventional physics, replacing them with better assumptions or findings. If so, is it the 1/r attractive force between electric filaments, which is much greater than gravity? If you can clarify the new paradigm, that would be good. I was never able to make much out of it myself, although that might be expected anyway, since my math background has been weak.

By the way, Charles, thanks for the clarification on Debye cells collapse process etc. Also, do you think the solar wind after 10 AU's distance is really absolutely neutral? Don't you think it could remain around 1 charge per 10^16 or so ions or atoms?

[CharlesChandler]

If the Sun was powered by galactic currents, the discharge wouldn't be just from the Sun to the heliopause -- it would be from the Sun out into the interstellar medium, and beyond. To drive such a current, we'd have to be in an electric field, so I'd really expect just one incoming and one outgoing discharge channel. The Sun wouldn't be a sphere -- it would be a tube. Anyway, I don't know where to begin with something so unrealistic.

There's your premise. My response to that ... quoting D. E. Scott:

The cylindrical shape of the typical laboratory plasma discharge tube is quite different from the spherical shape of the plasma surrounding the Sun. One purpose of this paper is to investigate the analytic consequences of that spherical geometry.

Your response, which was really a dismissal, was the following:

Anybody can copy equations out of a book. But where did he use those equations to calculate real forces, and then compare the calculated forces with the observations, as I have done, with dusty plasma collapses, as well as with the solar energy budget?

This is completely ignoring Scott’s premise. Scott is not simply copying and pasting equations out of a book. The observations are based and concluded upon the theories and the theories are based upon the paradigm. Scott is proposing a new paradigm along with theories; ergo, those equations you're referring to are applied specifically along with the new theories in the EU model.

Hang on a second -- there is an undistributed middle in there. Everybody knows that the Sun is a sphere. So it's appropriate the use formulas for spherical E-fields. But my point was that if the Sun is powered by a galactic circuit, the Sun wouldn't be a sphere -- it would be a cylinder. So I'm not at all ignoring Scott's assertions about the nature of spherical fields. I'm questioning the relevance within his filament model. And the corollary is that I'm questioning his filament model, given that the Sun is a sphere.

Scott broke down those equations into eleven steps, so your copy and paste statement appeared to gloss over the obvious without too much credence or thought provided.

My point was that he didn't plug in any numbers. I don't care how many steps it takes to work through the theory -- the point was that it wasn't applied to anything. In other words, the rubber never met the road.

When we've discussed evidence from Voyager 1 regarding the heliosphere, you refused to address it, claiming that observations from nearer the Sun and Earth were enough.

To address this issue head-on, you'll have to establish how a current could be detectable in the heliopause, and near the Sun, but not in the intervening distance, between 10 and 100 AU. I'm not ignoring the data from the heliopause. You're ignoring the data from 10~100 AU, which show no current.

Ironically, several years back on this forum, there was discussion that Scott or the EU model did not have enough quantitative analysis. Now, when the latter is supplied, it is merely copying and pasting equations, even though the paper gives a thorough breakdown of those equations and what they are to be applied to.

Are we talking about the same paper? The paper you cited didn't have any calculations. It just laid out the formulas.

[CharlesChandler]

Do you think the solar wind after 10 AU's distance is really absolutely neutral? Don't you think it could remain around 1 charge per 10^16 or so ions or atoms?

All of the plasma in the heliosphere is weakly ionized (which is why we call it "plasma" ). I don't remember how weakly. 10^16 is very weak. Just remember that to my knowledge, between 10 and 100 AU, all of the charges are local (i.e., within Debye cells), and there is no sunward field. Thus there is no current -- it's just local electrostatics.

[Aristarchus]

I assume that divulge is a typo there and is supposed to say devote.

Yes. My mistake. Thank you for the edit.

[Aristarchus]

Are we talking about the same paper? The paper you cited didn't have any calculations. It just laid out the formulas.

Oh, not good enough in the game of semantics. Calculate numbers from what space probe?

While most of us in the EU do not have access to raw data from NASA or ESA or university research studies, even fewer, like me, know what to do with it. It’s still early days, and I know I have to be perpetual student. Many scientists and mathematicians are NPA members. Your participation and help are sorely needed, in my view.

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/a ... s_6208.pdf

Remember what I stated about paradigm shift. As for you, you have people working on your quantitative analysis, so it should come forthcoming. Your linked paper authored by you does not supply any, and even plot lines for its claims, as mentioned before, remain absent and ambiguous.

The application of Maxwell’s equations to the correct spherical geometry of the Sun’s environment suggests a set of non-zero-valued electric-fields that EU theorists have long felt existed, but have not, until now, described quantitatively.

http://electric-cosmos.org/SunsEfield2013.pdf

[Aristarchus]

But my point was that if the Sun is powered by a galactic circuit, the Sun wouldn't be a sphere -- it would be a cylinder.

Based off what? Laboratory? Or observation based upon inference from supplied data? You just make this up as you go along, don't you?

[Aristarchus]

How can i reply to this, i think the theory CC created is a big mess. It is difficult to start tearing it down because you can literally start anywhere.

Exactly. This is why I introduced into this topic Thomas Kuhn and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, because when a paradigm becomes laden with excessive theories, it is on the verge of collapse.

[CharlesChandler]

Calculate numbers from what space probe?

Pick one.

The application of Maxwell’s equations to the correct spherical geometry of the Sun’s environment suggests a set of non-zero-valued electric-fields that EU theorists have long felt existed, but have not, until now, described quantitatively.

Right. So if Scott says that he is providing a quantitative analysis of the Sun's environment, you believe him. What he actually did was lay out the formulas for spherical electric fields, and then he mentioned the Sun. He didn't introduce any solar data, nor crunch any numbers. Hence he didn't do a quantitative analysis of the Sun. He described the theory of spherical electric fields. The formulas are just as valid for any spherical test charge. He never established the reason to think that the Sun is charged, much less used the formulas to derive expectations. So he didn't establish the relevance, much less did he do the application. It's called a bait-and-switch.

[CharlesChandler]

But my point was that if the Sun is powered by a galactic circuit, the Sun wouldn't be a sphere -- it would be a cylinder.

Based off what? Laboratory? Or observation based upon inference from supplied data? You just make this up as you go along, don't you?

To answer, here's you quoting Dr. Scott...

My response to that ... quoting D. E. Scott:

The cylindrical shape of the typical laboratory plasma discharge tube is quite different from the spherical shape of the plasma surrounding the Sun. One purpose of this paper is to investigate the analytic consequences of that spherical geometry.

[Aristarchus]

Ho hum.

[Lloyd]

HCS Debye Cells

I said: Do you think the solar wind after 10 AU's distance is really absolutely neutral? Don't you think it could remain around 1 charge per 10^16 or so ions or atoms?

CC said: All of the plasma in the heliosphere is weakly ionized (which is why we call it "plasma" ). I don't remember how weakly. 10^16 is very weak. Just remember that to my knowledge, between 10 and 100 AU, all of the charges are local (i.e., within Debye cells), and there is no sunward field. Thus there is no current -- it's just local electrostatics.

Questions
- Debye cells are negatively charged grains embedded in positively charged sheaths. Aren't they? So, if there are Debye cells in the solar system, that's what they would be apparently. The negative grains contain millions of atoms, if I recall correctly from your paper. Do you know what the range of sizes of the dust grains are? Can they be any size from one atom up to millions each?
- Do you have reason to think they fill all of the space in the solar system? Or are they only along the heliospheric current sheet?
- Do you have a clear idea how the Debye cells formed in the solar system? How would the dust grains likely have gotten scattered where they are? From collisions between rocky bodies within the solar system? From Debye cells that remained during and after accretion?
- Are the Debye cells in the solar system different from those in GMCs, giant molecular clouds? Are the cells in the solar system subject to accretion, if UV light and a wave of particles are supplied, as in your model of accretion?
- Are Debye cells likely to exist only in GMCs and star systems? What about in H-I and H-II regions?
- When the solar wind encounters Debye cells near the orbit of Saturn, do the solar wind particles form hydrogen around the dust grains, since hydrogen seems to be the dominant atom in the IPM? Or would they often combine with the dust grains too? I imagine dust grains must contain a lot of hydrogen too. Aren't they also mostly silicates?