Multi-point EU critique: can these points be addressed?

[phyllotaxis]

I have a good friend that is quite hostile to all things EU.
We were talking about the sciences last night and he
sent me this refutation to make his argument.

http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com/20 ... d.html?m=1

I don't have time this instant to detail my own perceived
flaws in these arguments, but I'd like to see your specific, reasoned replies to
these criticisms.

In fact, I hope we can begin a more detailed survey of common
refutations about EU work.

I find that it's simply not enough to make the case by laying out
findings- it's important to specifically answer-over and over if necessary -
the points made to debunk this work.

In fact, I wish there were a comprehensive and living "rebuttal to the rebuttals"
thread or resource around.

Perhaps this thread can address that need.


Please answer specific scientific assertions- no opinion, ad hominem, and or side talk.

If we are ever to sway opponents, we must answer criticisms used to dismiss the work we advocate.

Many thanks-

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, I tried to post the following reply, but alas I'm limited to 4096 characters. I'll just post the reply here and post a link on the blog.




It's very easy for someone outside of the PC/EU community to confuse the fact that there are more than one "electric sun" solar models to choose from, and the issue is still in debate inside the community. In fact there are at least a half a dozen different solar models under consideration, all with slightly different predictions, as well as various strengths and weaknesses.

For the sake of brevity, I'll describe the three most common, the 'Alfven' (proposed by Hannes Alfven) solar model which uses a standard model and energy source, The "Juergens" (proposed by Ralph E. Juergens) solar model that you describe in your blog which typically uses a external power source, and the 'Birkeland' (Kristian Birkeland) solar model which uses an internal power source to power (fusion) to create a "cathode sun" with respect to the heliosphere.

During the timeline that neutrino measurements remained perplexing, and no evidence of neutrino flavor changing existed, the Juergen's solar model gained in popularity among EU enthusiasts. It might have better explained a low neutrino count. That model remains popular today among some segments of the EU community, but it's steadily losing ground to other solar theories. Now that evidence of flavor changing is gaining momentum, an external power source isn't as appealing anymore. Keep in mind that a Juergen's model might still work, but it would require a lot of fusion to occur in the solar atmosphere, and very powerful magnetic field around the sun, which seems less likely based on satellite imagery of the solar atmosphere.

The 'Alfven' solar model is based on a standard solar power source (fusion), standard composition etc. The key difference between standard solar theory and Alfven's solar model is that Alfven also envision the sun as an "electrical generator" that is wired together and interacts with other suns. Based on the flow of current, it is 'wired together' with other objects in the solar system, the galaxy and universe. Alfven explained solar flares in terms of "electrical discharges' and circuit disruption processes in the solar atmosphere. It's strengths are related to the strengths of the standard solar model, but even those "strengths" have recently been called into question based on new data from the SDO space telescope.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/w ... more-67063

According to Heliosciesmology data from SDO, there simply isn't enough convection in the outer parts of the sun to explain solar flares and million degree coronal loops. Both standard theory, and therefore Alfven's theory require a standard speed convection process to occur in the solar atmosphere. If this data is true, the energy source of the corona can no longer be explained, it it also calls into question the belief that iron and nickel will remain mixed together with hydrogen and helium at the surface of the photosphere. A strong convection process is required in standard theory and also in Alfven's theory for a variety of reasons. A low convection rate is fatal to mainstream theory, but it's not fatal to Alfven's model. That is because Alfven predicted the fact that some small part of the sun's total energy can come from external influences. It's therefore possible for Alfven's model to overcome some of those convection problems but it's still difficult to do.

Kristian Birkeland and his team experimented with a 'cathode sun' in his lab over 100 years ago. Using that model they correctly predicted the presence of auroral currents, cathode rays from the sun, both positive and negative charged particles in the solar wind, solar atmospheric discharges, solar jets, and a whole host of things that are now observed in satellite images of the sun. That model also tends to "predict" that the atmosphere of the sun is "mass separated", and based on current information, that is highly likely. The Birkeland model is not reliant upon convection to generate current in the solar atmosphere, and therefore it's likely to become the "model of choice" in the future, particularly now that convection is known to be only 1 percent of predicted speed. The Birkeland model is unaffected by that observation.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h ... 5B838DF1D3

Keep in mind that Birkeland's model relies upon an internal power source, or an internal release of energy at least. There are multiple 'Birkland' models to choose from including a fusion based version that would result in exactly the same number of neutrinos from the sun.

Sincerely,

Michael Mozina
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com

[sjw40364]

I still say a self powered Sun AND an outside powered Sun is correct. The Sun creates its own power, but because of the Birkeland Currents there is also power flowing into and out of the Sun along these transmission lines. It is a balancing act between current flowing in and current flowing out. I say it is self powered because conductors moving in a magnetic field produce electric currents, and since all known conductors are made from atoms, every atom spinning and moving within the Sun's magnetic field produced from the outside currents, produces an electric current. Some try to dismiss this, claiming power can not be created, but is not a Birkeland current conductors (electrons) moving in a magnetic field which is the current?

Also you might look into the Van Allen Radiation belts. Is nuclear fussion happening in our atmosphere? Or does the electrical process simply liberate nuetrons from the atom? mc^2=E as well.

[Michael Mozina]

I still say a self powered Sun AND an outside powered Sun is correct.

I think we all tend to agree with that assessment, it's a question of percentages, external vs. internal.

Or does the electrical process simply liberate nuetrons from the atom? mc^2=E as well.

There is a in fact a documented release of neutrons in the Z-machine experiments. A plasma pinch can indeed liberate neutrons from atoms.

[sjw40364]

There is a in fact a documented release of neutrons in the Z-machine experiments. A plasma pinch can indeed liberate neutrons from atoms.

Now that I did not know, although strongly suspected as all atomic reactions boil down to the charge. I'll have to do a little digging thru the literature as Nuetrino counts are not only a major stumbling block for standard solar theories, but they also use them to support the model. I figured such was the case as the Van Allen belts have neutrino emissions as well.

[phyllotaxis]

Thanks for the excellent reply Michael and mjv, please remember to reference all the specific studies that statements are based on-- as this thread will devolve into conversational opinion and chit-chat without citations of actual scientific experiment. (A natural, but avoidable event)


Excellent start--

[Michael V]

phyllotaxis,

I shall leave it to followers of the faith to try to defend the EU theories, but I did notice the repeated insult used throughout the "refutation". He repeatedly mentioned that his debunking arguments meant that "physics" had survived the EU theorising. I find this so enormously ironic since almost the entire Standard Model is built on non-physical theories. Mathematically argued bullshit is NOT physics, it is little more than superstition. I am angered by this oft used tone of "we have the scientific high-ground" taken by pedlars of such unbelievable shite as the Standard Model theories. It will be interesting to see how quantum mechanics et al fare without their most cherished beliefs.

Michael

PS Of course, electromagnetic theory as it stands will not survive intact either, sorry about that.

[phyllotaxis]

Here is another argument he sent me :

http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticint ... -is-wrong/

I think this is becoming a very constructive thread, I appreciate the time taken to address the assertions point by point-

Please answer specific scientific assertions- no opinion, ad hominem, and or side talk.

[PersianPaladin]

Why can't the sun be a current-dense plasmoid when 99% of space is plasma?

After all, you only need to say that EM vastly overtakes gravity in such situations. And nuclear fusion at the core is not empirically proven. While, we know a lot about the electrodynamic nature of the sun's photosphere and corona.

"The Electric Sun is increasingly vindicated with each new piece of data NASA releases." - Donald E. Scott
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12 ... tron-flux/

[303vegas]

not really that much of a refutation. psygirl doesn't really provide any propper evidence or links to any research she may have done. a few notes and a bibliography would have been useful.

"It doesn’t matter too much what the modes are, the point is that the electric universe theory was based on outdated information from 1976. Very poor research indeed!"

if you're going to debunk something you need to back it up with evidence. surely you have to discuss the 'modes' and say what's wrong with them. the last sentence is very telling. scientific orthodoxy always seems to believe it can just say something is wrong 'because it is' and keep on demanding more and more evidence of the evident. it's fillibustering of the worst kind.

and re neutrinos:

Some of you will be familiar with quantum mechanics, where all particles can have both wave and particle properties. Well, neutrinos are confusing too, as they have mass and therefore qualify as a particle. When they are detected they have a probability of being either an electron neutrino or a tau neutrino. We have electron neutrino detectors, and once we build a tau neutrino detector the ‘flux’ will add up to the exact amount to solve the solar problem. So maybe it is a bit premature to throw physics out just yet.

i think a lot of quantum physics is just a fudge. all the stuff about probability and dual states and different types of neutrino that we can't detect yet. doesn't make sense to me. nature doesn't waste time on over elaborate design. personally i think a lot of the 'particles' they talk about are a bit spurious. they're just bits of stuff that fit through a particular sized sieve and behave in a certain way in the man-made environments of atom-smashers, detectors, etc.

[electrodogg1]

Michael Mozina wrote:

During the timeline that neutrino measurements remained perplexing, and no evidence of neutrino flavor changing existed, the Juergen's solar model gained in popularity among EU enthusiasts. It might have better explained a low neutrino count. That model remains popular today among some segments of the EU community, but it's steadily losing ground to other solar theories. Now that evidence of flavor changing is gaining momentum, an external power source isn't as appealing anymore.

Be careful of logical fallacies. See Donald Scott's TPOD on solar neutrinos.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... utrino.htm

There seems to be no more than a hope that electron neutrinos can morph into tau or muon neutrinos, but the actual observations are to the contrary, that is, that muon neutrinos can morph into electron neutrinos, not vice versa. There is no evidence, according to Dr. Scott's TPOD that the reverse can happen. The only logical inference that can be made from observations to date is that the detected solar electron neutrinos are even more deficient than previously thought, assuming that some of the electron neutrinos detected started out as muon neutrinos.

In other words, if we can observe a baby change into an adult, that does not imply that an adult can change into a baby. Perhaps an electron neutrino can change into a muon or tau neutrino, but until it's observed the nuclear fusion theory of solar power must remain a theory with lots of problems.

The reports of the death of Juergen's model have been greatly exaggerated.

[viscount aero]

phyllotaxis,

I shall leave it to followers of the faith to try to defend the EU theories, but I did notice the repeated insult used throughout the "refutation". He repeatedly mentioned that his debunking arguments meant that "physics" had survived the EU theorising. I find this so enormously ironic since almost the entire Standard Model is built on non-physical theories. Mathematically argued bullshit is NOT physics, it is little more than superstition. I am angered by this oft used tone of "we have the scientific high-ground" taken by pedlars of such unbelievable shite as the Standard Model theories. It will be interesting to see how quantum mechanics et al fare without their most cherished beliefs.

Michael

PS Of course, electromagnetic theory as it stands will not survive intact either, sorry about that.

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina wrote:

During the timeline that neutrino measurements remained perplexing, and no evidence of neutrino flavor changing existed, the Juergen's solar model gained in popularity among EU enthusiasts. It might have better explained a low neutrino count. That model remains popular today among some segments of the EU community, but it's steadily losing ground to other solar theories. Now that evidence of flavor changing is gaining momentum, an external power source isn't as appealing anymore.

Be careful of logical fallacies. See Donald Scott's TPOD on solar neutrinos.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... utrino.htm

There seems to be no more than a hope that electron neutrinos can morph into tau or muon neutrinos, but the actual observations are to the contrary, that is, that muon neutrinos can morph into electron neutrinos, not vice versa. There is no evidence, according to Dr. Scott's TPOD that the reverse can happen. The only logical inference that can be made from observations to date is that the detected solar electron neutrinos are even more deficient than previously thought, assuming that some of the electron neutrinos detected started out as muon neutrinos.

In other words, if we can observe a baby change into an adult, that does not imply that an adult can change into a baby. Perhaps an electron neutrino can change into a muon or tau neutrino, but until it's observed the nuclear fusion theory of solar power must remain a theory with lots of problems.

The reports of the death of Juergen's model have been greatly exaggerated.

You will note that I did in fact add a disclaimer in there about Juergen's model already.

IMO there does seem to be evidence that the correct number of neutrinos come from the sun, and some types of oscillation processes enjoy some amount of supporting evidence from the lab. Any and every solar model will necessarily need to explain the total number. We can dispute various nuances of oscillation observations, but the total neutrino count from the sun doesn't seem to be in dispute anymore. Even an externally powered model will need to explain that total in some fashion. I would expect an externally powered sun would generate more such reactions in the atmosphere than inside the sphere, but it depends on the core and the flow of current through the core.

Juergen's model was *particularly* appealing when it was thought that there was actually a neutrino deficit IMO. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. It's more of a level playing field at this point as I see it.

[Goldminer]

Michael Mozina wrote:

During the timeline that neutrino measurements remained perplexing, and no evidence of neutrino flavor changing existed, the Juergen's solar model gained in popularity among EU enthusiasts. It might have better explained a low neutrino count. That model remains popular today among some segments of the EU community, but it's steadily losing ground to other solar theories. Now that evidence of flavor changing is gaining momentum, an external power source isn't as appealing anymore.

Be careful of logical fallacies. See Donald Scott's TPOD on solar neutrinos.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... utrino.htm

There seems to be no more than a hope that electron neutrinos can morph into tau or muon neutrinos, but the actual observations are to the contrary, that is, that muon neutrinos can morph into electron neutrinos, not vice versa. There is no evidence, according to Dr. Scott's TPOD that the reverse can happen. The only logical inference that can be made from observations to date is that the detected solar electron neutrinos are even more deficient than previously thought, assuming that some of the electron neutrinos detected started out as muon neutrinos.

In other words, if we can observe a baby change into an adult, that does not imply that an adult can change into a baby. Perhaps an electron neutrino can change into a muon or tau neutrino, but until it's observed the nuclear fusion theory of solar power must remain a theory with lots of problems.

The reports of the death of Juergen's model have been greatly exaggerated.

You will note that I did in fact add a disclaimer in there about Juergen's model already.

IMO there does seem to be evidence that the correct number of neutrinos come from the sun, and some types of oscillation processes enjoy some amount of supporting evidence from the lab. Any and every solar model will necessarily need to explain the total number. We can dispute various nuances of oscillation observations, but the total neutrino count from the sun doesn't seem to be in dispute anymore. Even an externally powered model will need to explain that total in some fashion. I would expect an externally powered sun would generate more such reactions in the atmosphere than inside the sphere, but it depends on the core and the flow of current through the core.

Juergen's model was *particularly* appealing when it was thought that there was actually a neutrino deficit IMO. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. It's more of a level playing field at this point as I see it.

I'm not floating my boat on neutrino theory. It appears to me that though something is being detected, the likelihood of the existence of neutrinos is another pink unicorn. No Neutrinos

[phyllotaxis]

Here is a very detailed critique I was sent today:

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... g.html?m=1

Here is an excerpt:

Sunday, May 13, 2012
Electric Universe: Peer-Review Exercise 1
This is the first of five posts devoted to providing a more professional peer-review of the "Special Issue" of the Bentham Open Astronomy Journal (BOAJ) devoted to Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe (PC/EU). While BOAJ claims to be a peer-reviewed journal, we'll see in the upcoming posts that the quality of the peer-review process for this issue was very questionable. Each of the articles exposed in these reviews exhibit many fundamental errors in physics (especially electromagnetism) and astronomy. Many of the unchallenged mistakes are at levels which could be identified by an undergraduate physics student or possibly even a competent EE undergraduate.

Review report by W.T. Bridgman and Nereid.
Quotes from the article discussed are in blue.
-------
Article Reviewed:
Editorial: Some Initial Thoughts on Plasma Cosmology
by Jeremy Dunning-Davies

The claim that astronomers ignore plasmas and electric effects has been repeatedly documented as false (see 365 Days of Astronomy: The Electric Universe). Of all Electric Universe (EU) claimed 'successes' for electric fields in space, I have yet to find a single one whose history can actually be traced to an origin among EU supporters. In my research, I've even been surprised that some things I thought had originated with legitimate researchers, such as Hannes Alfvén, were, in fact, analyzed in far more detail by others before Alfvén (see Electric Universe: Measurement of the Electric Current in a Kpc-Scale Jet). Perhaps the only legitimate researcher that could be claimed an EU supporter might be Birkeland, perhaps if his original motivation had been inspired by the writings of George Warder (Wikipedia).

"the electric universe ideas are supported by much computer modeling".

This statement suggests that the upcoming articles will provide real details of this claim. However, what we'll find is the same reliance on the Peratt galaxy model - and nothing else. The Peratt model has failed enough tests that even Peratt has done no development on it in over ten years (see Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background).

In fact, beyond the Peratt model and these five BOAJ articles, I have yet to find a single quantitative model, computer or otherwise, that can be tied back to an original idea by EU supporters. The great majority of models which EU supporters try to claim as theirs can be traced back to the history of electric fields in astronomy, such as those documented above.

The statement also conveniently ignores the far larger body EU ideas which are NOT supported by computer modeling. The only 'supported' models fit a few observations, but fail on more critical observations (such as the Peratt model). I have summarized some of these failures in Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'.

"... a great many laboratory experiments being performed to help establish plasma properties [4]"

Indeed they have. What Dunning-Davies conveniently (and cynically?) ignores is the fact that a huge number of such experiments have been performed - and their results published - since 1992, when Peratt published his book ([4] is Peratt's book). To take just one example, the report from this 2010 Workshop on Opportunities in Plasma Astrophysics referenced dozens of laboratory experiments and published quantitative, plasma physics-based, models describing astronomical phenomena.

None of the Electric Universe evidence presented by Thornhill, Scott, and Smith is based on models that generate quantitative predictions, predicting the measured flux of photons or neutrinos, or the spectral lines shifts due to magnetic fields, as is done in regular astrophysics. We have never seen substantive quantitative predictions from EU 'theorists' or supporters.

"the Hubble image of the planetary nebula NGC6751 looks remarkably like the view down the barrel of a plasma focus device"

EU 'evidence' relies on the 'look' of the object to the human eye and brain giving their evidence more in common with pareidolia (Wikipedia) than any objective standard. The obvious related physical question is 'where is the evidence for the generator and supporting hardware needed to drive such a plasma focus device?' Are we to believe that these devices form naturally? If so, how? Perhaps they were built by a gigantic alien species? But we'll never get a viable answer from EU advocates. This EU claimed 'solution' does nothing but generate more questions, questions which should be able to answered easily, directly from a quantitative description of such devices.

Dunning-Davies claims that neutrinos:

"respond only weakly to massive objects such as stars and galaxies but form an extended atmosphere which, for example, refracts light around the Sun from distant stars and this offers an alternative explanation for the so-called gravitational bending of light"

yet provides no reference and certainly no experimental evidence for this process. This mechanism is also in contradiction to Thornhill's claim about Dark Matter (Thornhill, BOAJ 2011, v4, pg 193).

Dunning-Davies mentions Tony Peratt's simulations, but does not mention the inability to detect the synchrotron radiation expected from Peratt's currents, predicted by Peratt himself (see Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background).

"the whole purpose of this collection of articles is to draw the attention of a wider audience to the possible importance of electromagnetic effects in cosmology."

As will be pointed out in coming reviews, these articles are so riddled with fundamental errors in astronomy, electromagnetism, and plasma physics, that their net effect will more likely be damaging to the existing REAL work in electromagnetic effects in the cosmos.

This author lists many things that he finds flawed in EU hypotheses, naming Don Scott, Wal Thornhill, and Tony Peratt specifically.

I think these can be said to contain the lions share of the arguments against EU.

They must be answered by those that can specifically answer them--