The arrogant & ignorant mainstream ego is given a challenge!

[Maol]

Where's the math we all been hearing about? Where's the math?

I don't know to whom you are directing that question.

Gentlemen, I'm sorry I didn't make it more clear I was throwing a tease to the gentleman touting a "Physics Degree" and claiming EU theory lacks mathematical proofs. I want him to show his math he purports will prove EU theory is bunk.

[Michael Mozina]

Where's the math we all been hearing about? Where's the math?

I don't know to whom you are directing that question.

Gentlemen, I'm sorry I didn't make it more clear I was throwing a tease to the gentleman touting a "Physics Degree" and claiming EU theory lacks mathematical proofs. I want him to show his math he purports will prove EU theory is bunk.

Sorry. I guess I'm overly defensive.

[Zyxzevn]

Where's the math we all been hearing about? Where's the math?

I don't know to whom you are directing that question.

Gentlemen, I'm sorry I didn't make it more clear I was throwing a tease to the gentleman touting a "Physics Degree" and claiming EU theory lacks mathematical proofs. I want him to show his math he purports will prove EU theory is bunk.

Like I wrote above:
Math is bunk, if your model uses non existing elements.

For example: The water in my toilet drains faster, because I have unicorns drinking it.
Of course, you would say: unicorns do not exist, the toilet is leaking.
But I can show you that mathematical proof that one unicorn is needed to explain away the leak.

In astronomy we have many unicorns:
The rotation speed of galaxies is faster, because of dark invisible unicorns flying around
and pulling the stars inward, but not outward. Little black beauties, I call them.
Not to be mistaken with big black fuzzies, that are so dark that light can not escape.
And what about magical fairies, that expand portions of the universe to create new places for stars.
And on the sun rainbow unicorns bump into each other, creating the light of the sun and flares.

If we give these invisible creatures different names, do they suddenly exist?

[Higgsy]

So, no, you don't have any evidence that the solar wind is not overall neutral.

Gee, Higgsy, if the solar wind is so well understood, why do folks like you keep getting *surprised*?

Still no evidence that the solar wind is not overall neutral. Wishful thinking is not evidence.

[Michael Mozina]

So, no, you don't have any evidence that the solar wind is not overall neutral.

Gee, Higgsy, if the solar wind is so well understood, why do folks like you keep getting *surprised*?

Still no evidence that the solar wind is not overall neutral. Wishful thinking is not evidence.

Bzzzt. The verification of Birkeland's prediction of high speed electrons and cathode rays coming from the sun is not "wishful thinking'. It not only works that way in the lab, those specific predictions have already been *verified* by satellites in space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sune ... trahl.html
https://phys.org/news/2013-11-electron- ... e-sun.html
https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.4250
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GchWCmA55oE

That's not wishful thinking, that's real "evidence".

When you guys talk about "neutral" solar wind, you're not including those strahl electrons and electron beams coming from the sun. You have *no* evidence whatsoever that the total gross particle flow from the sun is net "neutral".

[Higgsy]

That video was what you provided buddy. Look above:
"Or, you could explain your basic problem with Birkeland's solar model, you know, his *working* model? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4 None of them will rise to the challenge of course."

If you want me to look at something else, then provide it. You think working physicists spend their time reading newspaper articles about the discredited ideas of famous physicists from 100 years plus ago?

This response is pretty much a 'classic'. I didn't ask you about the video,

Sure you did. There it is plain as day above.

I asked you about Birkeland's actual solar model. I just posted the video link so you'd be absolutely sure that Birkeland's solar model worked in the lab.

Except that demonstration is not a model of the sun. Not even close. It's merely a corona surrounding a spherical cathode in a partially evacuated chamber. How in heaven's name can anyone in their right mind call that a "solar model"?

Specifically what part of his work are you claiming was 'discredited'? Does it even relate to his solar model?

That the sun has a huge negative charge. That the negative charge is maintained by "transmutation of the "elements". That the planets are formed by the coalescences of "corpuscles" emitted by a stable sun. That an electric discharge in a vacuum tube causes transmutation of the lements.

That article says he based his prediction of the sun's energy source being "transmutation of the elements" on platinum and uranium appearing in his discharge tube. So, a) do you think that fission or fusion were occurring in his discharge tube,

Wow. No, and neither did he.

Well then the article you linked is lying or inadvertantly inaccurate because it says: "His experiments, he said, showed that as a result of an electric discharge in a vacuum tube platinum and uranium appeared. At any rate, the original rays were similar to the alpha rays, or, in other words, behaved in a manner comparable with radium. Such action, he said, would appear to suggest transmutation of the elements concerned."

b) do you think fission/fusion in the Sun is powered by electrical discharges

I'm inclined to believe that fusion sometimes involves electrical discharges and plasma pinches, sure.

Any calculations to show under what conditions fusion would occur as a result of an electrical discharge?

and c) do you think platinum and uranium are produced by fusion in the Sun.

No, I think Birkeland was working with the best ideas that he could think of which were relevant and current at the time.

Sure - but you are admitting his perfect model wasn't so perfect after all.

On the off-chance that you don't know the correct answers, they are no, no and no. So his so-called "prediction" was based on a fundamental misconception of what was happening in his experiment.

That's just pure nonsense. He simply made his best guess about the power source of the sun.

Yes. He was wrong.

You do realise the discharge around the model "sun" in the planeterella is nothing like the solar corona.

"Nothing like"? BS.

Nothing like.

It has neither the characteristics of the solar corona (pressure too high, temperature way, way too low),

You do realize it's a 'scaled' model, right?

If you scale the pressure of the discharge medium down by several orders of magnitude, scale the temperature of the corona up by several orders of magnitude, scale the current density down by several orders of magnitude, change the medium of the discharge, change the emitting surface from solid metal to low density neutral plasma, change the source of energy from a DC power supply to nuclear fusion, increase the dimensions by many orders of magnitude, change the relative dimensions of sun, earth and sun/earth distance by several orders of magnitude, change the discharge from purely negative to neutral, and add in the influence of the Sun's gravity, yes, it's a scaled model. Otherwise, not so much.

nor is it generated in the same way (however the solar corona is heated, it can't be a continuous flow of electrons from a highly charged sun).

I'll bite. Why not? How do you know it's not heated the same way?

What would happen to the highly charged Sun if it emitted a continuous flow of electrons over billions of years?

Except, it doesn't work. There is no continuous source of electrons, being electrostatically repelled from a highly negatively charged Sun, because the Sun is not negatively charged.

Yes, it is negatively charged with respect to the heliosphere. There's a charge separation between the surface of the sun, and the heliosphere and that's what causes the emission of electrons, heats up the corona, causes coronal loops, causes those "electron beams", polar jets, solar wind, etc.

Evidence?

Since the solar wind is neutral

When we include that "strahl" component, it's not "neutral" at all. Why is that strahl even there in the first place in your opinion? What causes it and sustains it *constantly*?

Neutral overall including strahl. If you know better, cite your source.

and kinetic,

Ya, but the kinetic energy is directly related to the charge separation you keep ignoring.

Nope, it's related to its temperature.

there is no reason to think that the existence of magnetic ropes is evidence for substantial potential difference between the Sun and the Earth.

This comment also demonstrates the nature of mainstream ignorance. Field aligned currents form in an ordinary plasma ball because there is current flowing from the glass to the anode. The same thing occurs in all such field aligned currents including those large scale magnetic ropes. It's the current that sustains them, and the current that ends up dumping so much energy into the Earth's magnetosphere and aurora.

Ah yes, the current that magically appears out of the overall neutral solar wind. Right. You do know that the field aligned current theory now accepted for the aurorae, has charge separation occurring relatively near the Earth in the Earth magnetosphere? And do you actually understand what a field aligned current is? Hint, it is NOT a current aligned with an electric field such as you get in a plasma ball. Sheesh!

The solar wind is *not* electrically neutral. While the slower moving particles may be pretty evenly distributed, you guys always ignore the higher speed electrons which you euphemistically refer to as 'strahl'.

Wrong. There is not the slightest shred of evidence that the solar wind is not neutral. Other than simply asserting it, have you any empirical data for electron or ion superabundance overall in the solar wind? Including all elements of both the slow and fast wind?

Your assertion that the solar wind is purely neutral doesn't enjoy a shred of evidence because they haven't even launched a satellite that really could easily measure charge separation over any significant distance to start with, and they don't account for the all the strahl features to start with.

So, no evidence that the solar wind is charged then? What would happen to the sun if the solar wind was substantially negatively charged?

Here's your problem in a nutshell: The mere fact that Birkeland's model *works in the lab* precludes you (logically at least) from dismissing his work.

Except, as we have seen, his theoretical model is wrong, and lab "models" don't actually model the sun.

[BeAChooser]

Still no evidence that the solar wind is not overall neutral. Wishful thinking is not evidence.

Still no evidence to support your theory that helically wound filaments are the result of gravity, shock and turbulence. Wishful thinking is not evidence, Higgsy.

[Michael Mozina]

Sure you did. There it is plain as day above.

No, it's as plain as day that I asked you about *Birkeland's model*, not the video. I simply handed you the video link so you would know that his model works in the lab. I'm gathering you're dodging this issue, and focusing only on the video and the NYT times article because you haven't actually read Birkeland's published works, or his solar model for yourself?

Except that demonstration is not a model of the sun. Not even close. It's merely a corona surrounding a spherical cathode in a partially evacuated chamber. How in heaven's name can anyone in their right mind call that a "solar model"?

I didn't. I *assumed* you read Birkelands' work for yourself, but clearly I was mistaken. You seem to erroneously believe that video somehow represents the sum total of his published work. Gah!

That the sun has a huge negative charge.

It does as that continuous electron 'strahl' from the sun demonstrates.

That the negative charge is maintained by "transmutation of the "elements".

Strike two for you.

That the planets are formed by the coalescences of "corpuscles" emitted by a stable sun.

Well, that may not be the whole story, but it may contribute to their growth.

That an electric discharge in a vacuum tube causes transmutation of the lements.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

That's strike three for you.

Well then the article you linked is lying or inadvertantly inaccurate because it says: "His experiments, he said, showed that as a result of an electric discharge in a vacuum tube platinum and uranium appeared.

Ya, I'm guessing that specific sentence was the reporter's misunderstanding because I don't recall Birkeland ever claiming that heavy elements appeared in his experiments, just high energy charged particles.

At any rate, the original rays were similar to the alpha rays, or, in other words, behaved in a manner comparable with radium. Such action, he said, would appear to suggest transmutation of the elements concerned."

That line is actually a bit more consistent with his actual writings. The 'rays' from the sphere were highly energetic and he did assume high energy particle generated a transmutation of elements. They did behave in a 'comparable' manner in terms of emitting high energy particles. I don't recall him claiming to have succeeded in producing/demonstrating a transmutation of elements in his lab, in fact the article mentions that he didn't, so the offending sentence seems to be related to the reporter's misunderstanding of what Birkeland said.

Any calculations to show under what conditions fusion would occur as a result of an electrical discharge?

Most calculations put the temperature range at around 100 million degrees and flares can certainly produce those temperatures.

https://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sftheory/flare.htm

Inside a flare, the temperature typically reaches 10 or 20 million degrees Kelvin, and can be as high as 100 million degrees Kelvin.

Yes. He was wrong.

No, he wasn't.

Nothing like.

You're apparently blind, willfully so in fact.

Otherwise, not so much.

Wow. Yep, willful ignorance on a stick.

What would happen to the highly charged Sun if it emitted a continuous flow of electrons over billions of years?

It doesn't *just* give off negative particles.

Evidence?

Every successful prediction that Birkeland made is 'evidence', including those "electron beams", "strahl", solar wind composed of both particles, solar flares, coronal loops, etc, etc, etc.

Neutral overall including strahl. If you know better, cite your source.

LOL! You didn't cite your source in the first place, you just handwaved your claim at me and yet you expect me to disprove your false claim. Do you even understand the concept of 'evidence'? You haven't presented any evidence to demonstrate that the net charged particle movement from the sun, including those electron beams and "strahl" is "neutral". You handwaved that claim at me and you offered no support whatsoever.

Nope, it's related to its temperature.

It's velocity temperature (and ionization temperature) are directly related to the electric field that generate the kinetic energy.

Ah yes, the current that magically appears out of the overall neutral solar wind. Right.

There's nothing neutral or magical about it. You're simply ignoring the strahl electron flow entirely. It's not even moving at the slower speeds of solar wind, so even if you took a snapshot in time, and counted all the particles present in a cubic meter of space, and the charged particles were exactly balanced, there would still be a net negative charge moving through that cubic meter of space because the electron strahl is traveling faster through that cubic meter of space than the slower speed protons. You have *zero* evidence that the particle flow is net neutral.

You do know that the field aligned current theory now accepted for the aurorae, has charge separation occurring relatively near the Earth in the Earth magnetosphere? And do you actually understand what a field aligned current is? Hint, it is NOT a current aligned with an electric field such as you get in a plasma ball. Sheesh!

You guys really don't know squat about plasma physics.

So, no evidence that the solar wind is charged then?

Man are you in hard core denial. That strahl is evidence it's charged, all by itself! Those strahl electrons are not moving at the same speed as solar wind, so it's not possible for you to claim it's "neutral" too.

What would happen to the sun if the solar wind was substantially negatively charged?

I guess you have never read any of Alfven's theories about every sun being a "homopolar generator"? Hint: Sun's are "wired together" in interwoven circuits in his model. Electrons can flow in as well as out.

Except, as we have seen, his theoretical model is wrong, and lab "models" don't actually model the sun.

That's just pure denial on your part. I have to ask you now: Have you actually sat down and read Birkeland's work for yourself yet, or is everything that you know about Birkeland's model coming from that NYTimes article and that 2 minute video?

[BeAChooser]

I guess you have never read any of Alfven's theories about every sun being a "homopolar generator"?

I'd say that you're right, Michael. Higgsy and Bob are pretty ignorant ... willfully so.

Which is why they run from topic after topic once the facts and details come out.

If they are what pass for modern day *degreed* physicists, no wonder astrophysics is going nowhere.

[Higgsy]

Sure you did. There it is plain as day above.

No, it's as plain as day that I asked you about *Birkeland's model*, not the video. I simply handed you the video link so you would know that his model works in the lab.

Except that the "lab model" consists of a demonstration of how the magnetic field of the Earth channels the solar wind into the poles. It is a model of how the aurorae form, and a pretty naive and simplified one at that, seeing that, amongst several other things, in the lab model only electrons are flowing whereas in the real world the solar wind is neutral. What it is not, is a model of the sun, seeing that the "lab model" differs from the Sun in about every single respect that you can think of. As I pointed out before:

Except that demonstration ("lab model") is not a model of the sun. Not even close. It's merely a corona surrounding a spherical cathode in a partially evacuated chamber. How in heaven's name can anyone in their right mind call that a "solar model"?

Well how can they?

[What ideas of Birkeland have been discredited?]That the sun has a huge negative charge.

It does as that continuous electron 'strahl' from the sun demonstrates.

a) the strahl is not continuous, and b) it is part of the overall neutral solar wind.

That the negative charge is maintained by "transmutation of the "elements".

Strike two for you.

Nah. Strike 2 for Birkeland.

That the planets are formed by the coalescences of "corpuscles" emitted by a stable sun.

Well, that may not be the whole story, but it may contribute to their growth.

And the evidence for that is what exactly?

That an electric discharge in a vacuum tube causes transmutation of the lements.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

That's strike three for you.

You're referencing a preprint in which you are an author as evidence for your position? Bwahaha!!! That's strike 4 for Birkeland. Neither fission nor fusion occurred in his discharge tube.

Well then the article you linked is lying or inadvertantly inaccurate because it says: "His experiments, he said, showed that as a result of an electric discharge in a vacuum tube platinum and uranium appeared.
At any rate, the original rays were similar to the alpha rays, or, in other words, behaved in a manner comparable with radium. Such action, he said, would appear to suggest transmutation of the elements concerned."

That line is actually a bit more consistent with his actual writings. The 'rays' from the sphere were highly energetic and he did assume high energy particle generated a transmutation of elements.

In his discharge tube. So he was wrong. Wrong.

Any calculations to show under what conditions fusion would occur as a result of an electrical discharge?

Most calculations put the temperature range at around 100 million degrees and flares can certainly produce those temperatures.
https://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sftheory/flare.htm

I asked for the conditions not just the temperature. I am ok to accept a temperature of 10 Mk to 100Mk. Now what pressure would be needed to drive fusion at those temperatures?

Nothing like.

You're apparently blind, willfully so in fact.

Otherwise, not so much.

Wow. Yep, willful ignorance on a stick.

All the wilful ignorance comes from you. You merely deleted my list of all the ways that the lab model is totally unlike the real sun because you can't deal with them, leaving a blind and unsupported assertion of ignorance. You can't deal with the content so you resort to insults. Typical. Here is the stuff you deleted again: If you scale the pressure of the discharge medium down by several orders of magnitude, scale the temperature of the corona up by several orders of magnitude, scale the current density down by several orders of magnitude, change the medium of the discharge, change the emitting surface from solid metal to low density neutral plasma, change the source of energy from a DC power supply to nuclear fusion, increase the dimensions by many orders of magnitude, change the relative dimensions of sun, earth and sun/earth distance by several orders of magnitude, change the discharge from purely negative to neutral, and add in the influence of the Sun's gravity, yes, it's a scaled model. Otherwise, not so much.

Perhaps you'd like to deal with it this time.

What would happen to the highly charged Sun if it emitted a continuous flow of electrons over billions of years?

It doesn't *just* give off negative particles.

Exactly - it gives off an overall neutral solar wind including the strahl.

Neutral overall including strahl. If you know better, cite your source.

LOL! You didn't cite your source in the first place, you just handwaved your claim at me and yet you expect me to disprove your false claim. Do you even understand the concept of 'evidence'? You haven't presented any evidence to demonstrate that the net charged particle movement from the sun, including those electron beams and "strahl" is "neutral". You handwaved that claim at me and you offered no support whatsoever.

You have no evidence that the overall solar wind is not neutral. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None. Whereas, if the solar wind was charged negatively, a positive charge would build up over time in the corona and over a long time in the whole sun, quenching the negative charge excess in the solar wind. Eventually if the corona became positively charged, then the solar wind would have a positive charge excess. The only long term stable situation is for the solar wind to be overall neutral and this must include all elements of the solar wind including the strahl.

Nope, it's related to its temperature.

It's velocity temperature (and ionization temperature) are directly related to the electric field that generate the kinetic energy.

Pure unadulterated ignorance. There is no such thing as "ionisation" temperature separate from kinetic temperature. The temperature of a gas or plasma is defined as being proportional to the mean kinetic energy of the particles.This is very elementary thermodynamics. How come you are ignorant of it? And you don't know that the temperature of the corona is caused by am electric field. You are simply asserting it.

Ah yes, the current that magically appears out of the overall neutral solar wind. Right.

There's nothing neutral or magical about it. You're simply ignoring the strahl electron flow entirely. It's not even moving at the slower speeds of solar wind, so even if you took a snapshot in time, and counted all the particles present in a cubic meter of space, and the charged particles were exactly balanced, there would still be a net negative charge moving through that cubic meter of space because the electron strahl is traveling faster through that cubic meter of space than the slower speed protons. You have *zero* evidence that the particle flow is net neutral.

I have explained above why the solar wind must be overall neutral. And that means the same amount of negative and positive charge must leave the corona, and the charge flux of negative and positive species must be the same in the solar wind. If electrons have a higher velocity, as they almost certainly do, then the volume density of positive charge will be higher than the negative charge.

You do know that the field aligned current theory now accepted for the aurorae, has charge separation occurring relatively near the Earth in the Earth magnetosphere? And do you actually understand what a field aligned current is? Hint, it is NOT a current aligned with an electric field such as you get in a plasma ball. Sheesh!

You guys really don't know squat about plasma physics.

Yeah, but a field aligned current is still not and never will be the current that you get in a simple plasma ball, so in spite of the insults, you're still dead wrong.

What would happen to the sun if the solar wind was substantially negatively charged?

I guess you have never read any of Alfven's theories about every sun being a "homopolar generator"? Hint: Sun's are "wired together" in interwoven circuits in his model. Electrons can flow in as well as out.

Great. So where is the evidence for electrons flowing in? Against the solar wind. Where does the solar wind flow inward to the sun? Where can I see that?

[Michael Mozina]

Except that the "lab model" consists of a demonstration of how the magnetic field of the Earth channels the solar wind into the poles. It is a model of how the aurorae form, and a pretty naive and simplified one at that, seeing that, amongst several other things, in the lab model only electrons are flowing whereas in the real world the solar wind is neutral. What it is not, is a model of the sun, seeing that the "lab model" differs from the Sun in about every single respect that you can think of. As I pointed out before:

Every single "thing" you've pointed at has been a complete handwave, devoid of any published support. For instance you keep *claiming* that the solar wind is net neutral including the electron beams and/or strahl, for all areas around the sphere, yet not once have you cited any actual published paper to support your erroneous claim.

Where's the published supporting paper, or are you just making this up as you go?

a) the strahl is not continuous, and b) it is part of the overall neutral solar wind.

That's two claims without published support. Strike two.

Nah. Strike 2 for Birkeland.

What are you even talking about since even the mainstream model is based on a 'transmutation of elements"?

And the evidence for that is what exactly?

That would be all those charged particles flowing into the Earth from the Sun.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

That's strike three for you.
You're referencing a preprint in which you are an author as evidence for your position? Bwahaha!!! That's strike 4 for Birkeland.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 006-9003-z

I don't think you understand how a scientific debate is supposed to work. That's a published paper from the Journal of Fusion energy. You're supposed to use *published* references to support your claims. I would accept your published papers too if you have some to offer. That paper was published, so unless you've got a published rebuttal, you've got nothing to offer me in terms of science, and that's your third strike for not providing *any* published references while simply handwaving at published references.

Neither fission nor fusion occurred in his discharge tube.

He never personally claimed otherwise, regardless of what the reporter may have printed! Did you ever read Birkeland's actual work for yourself, yes or no?

In his discharge tube. So he was wrong. Wrong.

No! At worst case the reporter was "wrong" for even suggesting it, but Birkeland specifically claimed that he did *not* achieve a transmutation of elements during his experiments later in the very same newspaper article. Are you even paying attention?

I asked for the conditions not just the temperature. I am ok to accept a temperature of 10 Mk to 100Mk. Now what pressure would be needed to drive fusion at those temperatures?

I'd imagine it has to be quite high and occurs in plasma pinch processes in those coronal loops and the discharges processes which occur in the sun.

All the wilful ignorance comes from you. You merely deleted my list of all the ways that the lab model is totally unlike the real sun because you can't deal with them, leaving a blind and unsupported assertion of ignorance.

I can deal with them quite easily by asking you yet again to cite *published support* for your claims, but you can't deal with my request or you'd simply comply with it. Since you won't and you can't provide such references, I can only assume the willful ignorance is yours and yours alone. You don't even seem to have read any of Birkeland's own writings for yourself, and you're apparently going by a two minute video recap and NY Times article to get all your information on his work. How sad.

You can't deal with the content so you resort to insults. Typical. Here is the stuff you deleted again: If you scale the pressure of the discharge medium down by several orders of magnitude,

So what?

scale the temperature of the corona up by several orders of magnitude,

And if you'd read his book you'd know his mathematical models are in fact scaled. I think he calculates the sun's voltage at about 600 million volts for instance. I'm sure that's not the voltage that is used in that table top display.

scale the current density down by several orders of magnitude,

That you just made up and you refuse to provide any published papers to support your claim.

change the medium of the discharge,

You mean add positive ions? Done. He actually predicted (and found) both types of charged particles flowing from the sphere.

change the emitting surface from solid metal to low density neutral plasma,

That depends on whether or not there are more dense cathode layers under the surface of the photosphere. In fact all the SDO imagery would require the cathode to be located under the surface of the photosphere in order to produce the effects we observe on the surface of the photosphere. The surface of the photosphere isn't necessarily the cathode surface. It's just surface of a single double layer in the atmosphere.

change the source of energy from a DC power supply to nuclear fusion,

Birkeland did that already. He used a "transmutation of elements" to create and sustain the energy.

increase the dimensions by many orders of magnitude, change the relative dimensions of sun,

This is how I know you didn't actually read his work for yourself.

earth and sun/earth distance by several orders of magnitude, change the discharge from purely negative to neutral, and add in the influence of the Sun's gravity, yes, it's a scaled model. Otherwise, not so much.

Blah, blah, handwave, blah. The suns gravity doesn't seem to be the primary force/curvature in solar wind, or their wouldn't be any solar wind at all.

Perhaps you'd like to deal with it this time.

What's there to deal with other than the fact you didn't read his work and you refuse to cite any published references?

Exactly - it gives off an overall neutral solar wind including the strahl.

Citation this time? Or did you intend to keep running from that simple request for the rest of your life?

LOL! You didn't cite your source in the first place, you just handwaved your claim at me and yet you expect me to disprove your false claim. Do you even understand the concept of 'evidence'? You haven't presented any evidence to demonstrate that the net charged particle movement from the sun, including those electron beams and "strahl" is "neutral". You handwaved that claim at me and you offered no support whatsoever.

You have no evidence that the overall solar wind is not neutral. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None.

BS. All that plasma that is continuously flying off the sun, and all the other successful predictions of Birkelands model are "evidence" that the solar wind is not "neutral". The temperature of the corona is evidence it's not "neutral".

Whereas, if the solar wind was charged negatively, a positive charge would build up over time in the corona and over a long time in the whole sun, quenching the negative charge excess in the solar wind. Eventually if the corona became positively charged, then the solar wind would have a positive charge excess. The only long term stable situation is for the solar wind to be overall neutral and this must include all elements of the solar wind including the strahl.

That's not true. There are non neutral currents flowing from the surface to the heliosphere, and there are non-neutral currents flowing into the sun near the poles.

Pure unadulterated ignorance. There is no such thing as "ionisation" temperature separate from kinetic temperature.

The only one acting ignorant of the importance of the ionization state of the ion is you. A more highly charged ion is going to react more powerfully with another charged particle than an ion of the same element at a lower ionization state. The ionization state of the particle absolutely matters with respect to the level of particle interaction and kinetic energy.

And you don't know that the temperature of the corona is caused by am electric field. You are simply asserting it.

Nope. Birkeland's experiments and his *published writings* are my basis of asserting it, and you won't reciprocate with *published* references, let alone *working* references.

I have explained above why the solar wind must be overall neutral.

You didn't ever 'explain' anything, you keep *handwaving* a lot of stuff at me for which you have provided not a *shred* of published support.

The solar wind doesn't have to be neutral because current can also flow *into* the sun. Then again you'd have had to actually sit down and read Birkeland's work and Alfven's work to know that, and you guys are simply too lazy to bother. Have you read Birkeland's book yet, yes or no? Have you read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma, yes or no? Don't dodge those questions.

Yeah, but a field aligned current is still not and never will be the current that you get in a simple plasma ball, so in spite of the insults, you're still dead wrong.

Ok, I'll bite. What kind of 'currents' do we get inside of a simple plasma ball?

What would happen to the sun if the solar wind was substantially negatively charged?

Great. So where is the evidence for electrons flowing in? Against the solar wind. Where does the solar wind flow inward to the sun? Where can I see that?

Here's a paper which describes 'bidirectional' strahl events and there's evidence of the same thing at high pitch angles in the ace data too:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 23656/full
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews56.html

I've yet to see you produce a single published paper to support any of your handwavy claims. When can I expect to see them?

[comingfrom]

Here is another.

Coronagraph observations of inflows during high solar activity
Y.-M. Wang, N. R. Sheeley, Jr., R. A. Howard, and O. C. St. Cyr
E. O. Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
G. M. Simnett
School of Physics and Space Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK