verisimilitude wrote:My bad, Mozina. I thought you were equating "electric current" with "Birkeland Current," ie the sun, the locus of the z-pinch in an intergalactic Birkeland Current, was creating and emitting its own Birkeland Currents at it's surface. *That* would take some explaining...
My end of this conversation seems to have run it's course; I clearly have little to add beyond unfounded speculation.
Cheers.
But Don Scott disputes this explanation and maintains that the neutrino deficit problem still exists. Could you clarify what it is about Scott's refutation with which you disagree?MM wrote:...during the "neutrino deficit' days of solar physics before neutrino oscillation was observed and only electron neutrinos were measured to be about 1/3 of the expected number
nick c wrote:But Don Scott disputes this explanation and maintains that the neutrino deficit problem still exists. Could you clarify what it is about Scott's refutation with which you disagree?MM wrote:...during the "neutrino deficit' days of solar physics before neutrino oscillation was observed and only electron neutrinos were measured to be about 1/3 of the expected number
http://electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm
Heliophysicists believe that Earth’s magnetic tail “stretches like a windsock”, becoming so “tension-filled” that it “snaps like a rubber band”, causing magnetic field lines to “reconnect”, releasing magnetic energy in the form of heat and light. They believe that such events cause the auroral phenomenon when they “fling” charged particles from the magnetotail back into the atmosphere. A recent publication attempts to justify magnetic reconnection with ARTEMIS data.
Michael Mozina wrote:The fact that both electrons and protons flow from the sun toward space...
Anyway, I've enjoyed our discussions
No laws of physics are violated. You are dealing with a dynamic swirling plasma environment. Plasmas were given that name by Langmuir because of their seemingly life like behavior. The implication being that there is at least a superficial appearance of unpredictability. Plasma physics is still a relatively new branch of science and one would expect that progress toward understanding of plasmas is going to increase in the future.verisimilitude wrote:Michael Mozina wrote:The fact that both electrons and protons flow from the sun toward space...
It's not exactly on topic, but THAT is the thing that makes the least sense to me. Why are they not attracting each other according to the basic EM laws?
verisimilitude wrote:Why are they not attracting each other according to the basic EM laws?
Michael Mozina wrote:nick c wrote:But Don Scott disputes this explanation and maintains that the neutrino deficit problem still exists. Could you clarify what it is about Scott's refutation with which you disagree?MM wrote:...during the "neutrino deficit' days of solar physics before neutrino oscillation was observed and only electron neutrinos were measured to be about 1/3 of the expected number
http://electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm
As I understand Scott's position, he accepts that all three types of neutrinos come from the sun, but he believes that neutrinos do *not* oscillate from one type to another (tau., muon, electron), rather he believes that all three types are created and emitted by processes that occur inside the photosphere. That's possible IMO, but I simply accept the concept that neutrinos may in fact oscillate from one type to another like the mainstream, so IMO they could all be fusion related. I don't write off Scott's position on the issue of oscillation, nor do I write off the mainstream position, but I tend to lean in the direction of the mainstream on that issue.
I think we all agree that there are X number of neutrinos coming from the sun, we simply differ on why we see all three types. I don't actually know if Scott is correct or not, but I don't really have a problem with the concept of neutrino oscillation. AFAIK, that's the only difference between us.
As I understand Juergens position however, AFAIK Juergens was not aware at the time that he proposed his solar model that all three types of neutrinos were present to start with. He believed that the sun simply emitted fewer of them, and the inflow of current made up for the energy difference. I can't recall however reading his specific position on that topic, so that's more of a 'guess" on my part.
before it realises what has been implied here and starts to bang on about dark matter again which as we all know is absolutely 100% falsified now.The most popular model for fundamental particles, known as the Standard Model, did not predict such schizophrenic neutrinos
verisimilitude wrote:Michael Mozina wrote:The fact that both electrons and protons flow from the sun toward space...
It's not exactly on topic, but THAT is the thing that makes the least sense to me. Why are they not attracting each other according to the basic EM laws? Why are the like charges not repelling eachother?
How are electrons even able to escape a positively charged sun?
(Let alone the slow solar wind, which fails to reach escape velocity - even with the help of "MR".)
All models create the impression of doing a fantastic job selectively apply their laws... which only fosters confusion.
No worries here, sir. I'm sure there are plenty of things over which we can agree to disagree.
Cheers
neilwilkes wrote:Sorry Michael, but I am with Don on this one as to my mind saying Neutrinos "change type" (or oscillate if you like) without any evidence for this whatsoever apart from it being needed to prop up the fusion model. His train analogy is a very good one indeed, and as he says the official announcement is even saying they still see a deficit in Electron Neutrinos plus there is a rare moment of honesty when it statesbefore it realises what has been implied here and starts to bang on about dark matter again which as we all know is absolutely 100% falsified now.The most popular model for fundamental particles, known as the Standard Model, did not predict such schizophrenic neutrinos
Michael Mozina wrote:(On Birkeland's experiment)
..The filamentary features are a result of the flow of electrical current, and the coronal loops are following magnetic field lines from an electromagnet inside the sphere..
Zyxzevn wrote:Michael Mozina wrote:(On Birkeland's experiment)
..The filamentary features are a result of the flow of electrical current, and the coronal loops are following magnetic field lines from an electromagnet inside the sphere..
I think the wording might cause some confusion.
The flow of electrical current follows the path of least resistance.
They do not exactly follow the magnetic field lines, but the magnetic field causes resistance
because it causes curving of the currents when it is not aligned. So in places where the magnetic
field is strong they will tend to follow the magnetic field lines partially.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests