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.Zyxzevn wrote:I don't know to whom you are directing that question.Maol wrote:Where's the math we all been hearing about? Where's the math?
The arrogant & ignorant mainstream ego is given a challenge!
-
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm
Re: The arrogant & ignorant mainstream ego is given a challe
-
- Posts: 1701
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
- Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
- Contact:
Re: The arrogant & ignorant mainstream ego is given a challe
Sorry. I guess I'm overly defensive.Maol wrote: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.Zyxzevn wrote:I don't know to whom you are directing that question.Maol wrote:Where's the math we all been hearing about? Where's the math?
- Zyxzevn
- Posts: 1002
- Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
- Contact:
Re: The arrogant & ignorant mainstream ego is given a challe
Like I wrote above:Maol wrote: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.Zyxzevn wrote:I don't know to whom you are directing that question.Maol wrote:Where's the math we all been hearing about? Where's the math?
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?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
-
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm
Re: The arrogant & ignorant mainstream ego is given a challe
Still no evidence that the solar wind is not overall neutral. Wishful thinking is not evidence.BeAChooser wrote:Gee, Higgsy, if the solar wind is so well understood, why do folks like you keep getting *surprised*?Higgsy wrote: So, no, you don't have any evidence that the solar wind is not overall neutral.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
-
- Posts: 1701
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
- Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
- Contact:
Re: The arrogant & ignorant mainstream ego is given a challe
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.Higgsy wrote:Still no evidence that the solar wind is not overall neutral. Wishful thinking is not evidence.BeAChooser wrote:Gee, Higgsy, if the solar wind is so well understood, why do folks like you keep getting *surprised*?Higgsy wrote: So, no, you don't have any evidence that the solar wind is not overall neutral.
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".
-
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm
Re: The arrogant & ignorant mainstream ego is given a challe
Sure you did. There it is plain as day above.Michael Mozina wrote:This response is pretty much a 'classic'. I didn't ask you about the video,Higgsy wrote: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?
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 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.
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.Specifically what part of his work are you claiming was 'discredited'? Does it even relate to his solar model?
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."Wow. No, and neither did he.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,
Any calculations to show under what conditions fusion would occur as a result of an electrical discharge?I'm inclined to believe that fusion sometimes involves electrical discharges and plasma pinches, sure.b) do you think fission/fusion in the Sun is powered by electrical discharges
Sure - but you are admitting his perfect model wasn't so perfect after all.No, I think Birkeland was working with the best ideas that he could think of which were relevant and current at the time.and c) do you think platinum and uranium are produced by fusion in the Sun.
Yes. He was wrong.That's just pure nonsense. He simply made his best guess about the power source of the sun.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.
Nothing like."Nothing like"? BS.You do realise the discharge around the model "sun" in the planeterella is nothing like the solar corona.
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.You do realize it's a 'scaled' model, right?It has neither the characteristics of the solar corona (pressure too high, temperature way, way too low),
What would happen to the highly charged Sun if it emitted a continuous flow of electrons over billions of years?I'll bite. Why not? How do you know it's not heated the same way?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).
Evidence?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.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.
Neutral overall including strahl. If you know better, cite your source.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*?Since the solar wind is neutral
Nope, it's related to its temperature.Ya, but the kinetic energy is directly related to the charge separation you keep ignoring.and kinetic,
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!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.there is no reason to think that the existence of magnetic ropes is evidence for substantial potential difference between the Sun and the Earth.
So, no evidence that the solar wind is charged then? What would happen to the sun if the solar wind was substantially negatively charged?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.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?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'.
Except, as we have seen, his theoretical model is wrong, and lab "models" don't actually model the sun.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.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
-
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm
Re: The arrogant & ignorant mainstream ego is given a challe
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.Higgsy wrote: Still no evidence that the solar wind is not overall neutral. Wishful thinking is not evidence.
-
- Posts: 1701
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
- Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
- Contact:
Re: The arrogant & ignorant mainstream ego is given a challe
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?Higgsy wrote:Sure you did. There it is plain as day above.
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!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"?
It does as that continuous electron 'strahl' from the sun demonstrates.That the sun has a huge negative charge.
Strike two for you.That the negative charge is maintained by "transmutation of the "elements".
Well, that may not be the whole story, but it may contribute to their growth.That the planets are formed by the coalescences of "corpuscles" emitted by a stable sun.
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633That an electric discharge in a vacuum tube causes transmutation of the lements.
That's strike three for you.
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.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.
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.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."
Most calculations put the temperature range at around 100 million degrees and flares can certainly produce those temperatures.Any calculations to show under what conditions fusion would occur as a result of an electrical discharge?
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.
No, he wasn't.Yes. He was wrong.
You're apparently blind, willfully so in fact.Nothing like.
Wow. Yep, willful ignorance on a stick.Otherwise, not so much.
It doesn't *just* give off negative particles.What would happen to the highly charged Sun if it emitted a continuous flow of electrons over billions of years?
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.Evidence?
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.Neutral overall including strahl. If you know better, cite your source.
It's velocity temperature (and ionization temperature) are directly related to the electric field that generate the kinetic energy.Nope, it's related to its temperature.
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.Ah yes, the current that magically appears out of the overall neutral solar wind. Right.
You guys really don't know squat about plasma physics.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!
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.So, no evidence that the solar wind is charged then?
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.What would happen to the sun if the solar wind was substantially negatively charged?
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?Except, as we have seen, his theoretical model is wrong, and lab "models" don't actually model the sun.
-
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm
Re: The arrogant & ignorant mainstream ego is given a challe
I'd say that you're right, Michael. Higgsy and Bob are pretty ignorant ... willfully so.Michael Mozina wrote:I guess you have never read any of Alfven's theories about every sun being a "homopolar generator"?
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.
-
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm
Re: The arrogant & ignorant mainstream ego is given a challe
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:Michael Mozina wrote: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.Higgsy wrote:Sure you did. There it is plain as day above.
Well how can they?Higgsy wrote: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"?
a) the strahl is not continuous, and b) it is part of the overall neutral solar wind.It does as that continuous electron 'strahl' from the sun demonstrates.[What ideas of Birkeland have been discredited?]That the sun has a huge negative charge.
Nah. Strike 2 for Birkeland.Strike two for you.That the negative charge is maintained by "transmutation of the "elements".
And the evidence for that is what exactly?Well, that may not be the whole story, but it may contribute to their growth.That the planets are formed by the coalescences of "corpuscles" emitted by a stable sun.
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.https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633That an electric discharge in a vacuum tube causes transmutation of the lements.
That's strike three for you.
In his discharge tube. So he was wrong. Wrong.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.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."
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?Most calculations put the temperature range at around 100 million degrees and flares can certainly produce those temperatures.Any calculations to show under what conditions fusion would occur as a result of an electrical discharge?
https://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sftheory/flare.htm
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.You're apparently blind, willfully so in fact.Nothing like.
Wow. Yep, willful ignorance on a stick.Otherwise, not so much.
Perhaps you'd like to deal with it this time.
Exactly - it gives off an overall neutral solar wind including the strahl.It doesn't *just* give off negative particles.What would happen to the highly charged Sun if it emitted a continuous flow of electrons over billions of years?
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.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.Neutral overall including strahl. If you know better, cite your source.
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.It's velocity temperature (and ionization temperature) are directly related to the electric field that generate the kinetic energy.Nope, it's related to its temperature.
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.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.Ah yes, the current that magically appears out of the overall neutral solar wind. Right.
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.You guys really don't know squat about plasma physics.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!
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?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.What would happen to the sun if the solar wind was substantially negatively charged?
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
-
- Posts: 1701
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
- Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
- Contact:
Re: The arrogant & ignorant mainstream ego is given a challe
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.Higgsy wrote: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:
Where's the published supporting paper, or are you just making this up as you go?
That's two claims without published support. Strike two.a) the strahl is not continuous, and b) it is part of the overall neutral solar wind.
What are you even talking about since even the mainstream model is based on a 'transmutation of elements"?Nah. Strike 2 for Birkeland.
That would be all those charged particles flowing into the Earth from the Sun.And the evidence for that is what exactly?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 006-9003-zhttps://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.
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.
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?Neither fission nor fusion occurred in his discharge tube.
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?In his discharge tube. So he was wrong. Wrong.
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.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 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.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.
So what?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,
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 temperature of the corona up by several orders of magnitude,
That you just made up and you refuse to provide any published papers to support your claim.scale the current density down by several orders of magnitude,
You mean add positive ions? Done. He actually predicted (and found) both types of charged particles flowing from the sphere.change the medium of the discharge,
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 emitting surface from solid metal to low density neutral plasma,
Birkeland did that already. He used a "transmutation of elements" to create and sustain the energy.change the source of energy from a DC power supply to nuclear fusion,
This is how I know you didn't actually read his work for yourself.increase the dimensions by many orders of magnitude, change the relative dimensions of sun,
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.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.
What's there to deal with other than the fact you didn't read his work and you refuse to cite any published references?Perhaps you'd like to deal with it this time.
Citation this time? Or did you intend to keep running from that simple request for the rest of your life?Exactly - it gives off an overall neutral solar wind including the strahl.
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".You have no evidence that the overall solar wind is not neutral. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None.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.
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.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.
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.Pure unadulterated ignorance. There is no such thing as "ionisation" temperature separate from kinetic temperature.
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.And you don't know that the temperature of the corona is caused by am electric field. You are simply asserting it.
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.I have explained above why the solar wind must be overall neutral.
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.
Ok, I'll bite. What kind of 'currents' do we get inside of a simple plasma ball?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?
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: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?
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
- Posts: 760
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
- Location: NSW, Australia
- Contact:
Re: The arrogant & ignorant mainstream ego is given a challe
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
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
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests