Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

[Aristarchus]

Reading my emphasis, what is the interval for these flashes? What quantitative citation do you have to support your positing? What is the rate of the exchange? Citations?

I'm referring to flashes in the lower corona after a CME, which occur within minutes of the solar flare that caused the CME. I haven't explicitly studied these, since in my model, whatever neutralization occurs then is "wasted", and has no long-term effects. Only the +ions that are fully expelled from the Sun, as +ions (without being neutralized), are part of the charge separation mechanism, and thus are responsible for the electric current during the quiet phase.

Well I would think that the quantitative, or at the very least, data from a particular mission or an observatory might play a role based on your previous statements, thus the need to provide a citation:

Yes, seriously, and yes, this is a big problem for Electric Sun proponents. To my knowledge, my model is the only electric hypothesis that survives close scrutiny of the data.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15266

My emphasis.

I'm going through your paper now, but I would think, in the future, it might benefit the discussion if you quote from it for brevity sake. I also might suggest that you might not alienate you readers in the second sentence - again, my emphasis:

Instead of mindlessly accepting existing constructs that are untestable by definition (e.g., dark matter, dark energy, etc.), this new method is based entirely on laboratory physics.

http://vixra.org/abs/1401.0067

Now, let's look at your paper, shall we?

Some EM theorists have generalized the concept of Birkeland currents to explain the prevalence of filaments, but without establishing the electromotive forces at play, and without demonstrating that the currents would require material filaments. So we’ll neglect electrodynamics, and focus instead on electrostatics.

Figure 4 shows a random distribution of charges, where the connecting line shows electrostatic attraction between opposite charges. That is the source of the “like-likes-like” force.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1401.0067v1.pdf

Now, let's look at D. E. Scott's paper that resembles scientific articulation:

1. The Sun is not an isolated point charge within a vacuum. It is a body that exists surrounded by a sea of plasma. So the application of classical (free-space) electrostatic analyses to the solar environment is in appropriate.

2. The solar plasma is generally quasi-neutral3, which means that the number of free elecrons and the number of positive ions within any reasonably sized volume (1m3 to 1km3) are equal. This is not to say that quasi-neutrality is strictly adhered to in all regions within the solar plasmashpere. It clearly is not. Maxwell’s equations can be used in limited and well-defined ways – especially in those regions of non-quasi-neutrality.

3. The solar plasma (as any plasma) is not an ideal, zero-resistance entity. However, plasma generally cannot support high-valued electric fields. Typically, if a high valued voltage drop is imposed between two points in plasma, a DL will form somewhere between those points, such that the greater part of the apllied voltage difference will occur within it. Because of this, only low-valued electric fields can and do exist within the solar plasmasphere (along with one or more such Dls).

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

Mr. Scott then breaks it down to mathematical terms. Mr. Chandler introduces an idea and then tells us what we should be seeing in the "frame." Really? You have somewhere along the lines of 126 references, but I'm going to go further into your paper and find just how many exact quotes you have for your footnotes. If you don't think I have the patience to peruse that material, you're seriously mistaken.

I can't believe that I come to this forum and discover how little sourced Mr. Scott is. It boggles the mind.

[CharlesChandler]

Stephen Crothers has demolished the non-sense of Black Holes

I could clarify the writing, but in using the term "black holes", I'm not buying into the mainstream conception of them -- I'm just using the term to refer to "those things the mainstream calls black holes". I'm maintaining that they are just a type of star, sometimes visible, sometimes not, in the same class as the so-called neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, quasars, BL Lac objects, white drawfs, and the stars at the centers of planetary nebulae. These all have similar properties, and which cannot be reconciled with the properties of main sequence stars. So I have two stellar models, one for the exotics, and one for the main sequence stars (like our Sun).

Kudos to Crothers.

[Aristarchus]

Stephen Crothers has demolished the non-sense of Black Holes

As you refer to this version via a Galactic collapse, what is the path-to-market for this "belief" ?... it cannot be the traditional way because its been shown beyond doubt that to arrive at the stardard version requires a total trashing and misrepresentation of Scwhartzchilds original work on Einsteins field equations that these fallicies are fraudulently derived from

I'll keep reading

Cheers

Oh please, Kiwi. Can we just stop the pretense of giving Charles the benefit of the doubt. He is repackaging consensus science to sell a philosophy, not science. These guys are a dime a dozen on the Web. They come with long convoluted bullshyte, and try to post as much verbose postings as possible so that they get into the high level result page. If you're doing a search on a well-published author, and you see that the first, or second, or third link dedicated to debunkers and not the author - red f***ing flag and something's amidst.

Seriously, black holes don't admit light? Study black holes from about 2002 research and see how much has been questioned regarding it ... and you don't need Crothers ... just read Hawking back tracking.

Do Black Holes Generate a Ring of Light? Experts Say "Yes"

I don't want to give the above too much time for study, but basically scientists started to question Hawking's view of things regarding black holes, and so the MSM started to do damage control while still holding the Messiah Hawking with high regard. Beyond laughable. Disgraceful and soulless would be a more accurate description. Freaks, man. Total freaks. Well, it is the season of Halloween for those that adhere to synchronicity.

[Aristarchus]

Stephen Crothers has demolished the non-sense of Black Holes

I could clarify the writing, but in using the term "black holes", I'm not buying into the mainstream conception of them -- I'm just using the term to refer to "those things the mainstream calls black holes". I'm maintaining that they are just a type of star, sometimes visible, sometimes not, in the same class as the so-called neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, quasars, BL Lac objects, white drawfs, and the stars at the centers of planetary nebulae. These all have similar properties, and which cannot be reconciled with the properties of main sequence stars. So I have two stellar models, one for the exotics, and one for the main sequence stars (like our Sun).

Kudos to Crothers.

That's not your thesis statement. Here is what you're quoted as stating. Read my emphasis:

What do we know about black holes? We know that they have a strong gravitational
field, and that they don't produce any light, not even infrared radiation, which simply has to be present as matter gets compacted by the force of gravity.Near black holes, we know that matter being pulled in has been accelerated to relativistic speeds.

[kiwi]

Stephen Crothers has demolished the non-sense of Black Holes
As you refer to this version via a Galactic collapse, what is the path-to-market for this "belief" ?... it cannot be the traditional way because its been shown beyond doubt that to arrive at the stardard version requires a total trashing and misrepresentation of Scwhartzchilds original work on Einsteins field equations that these fallicies are fraudulently derived from

I'll keep reading

Oh please, Kiwi. Can we just stop the pretense of giving Charles the benefit of the doubt.
.

ok

[CharlesChandler]

If you're doing a search on a well-published author, and you see that the first, or second, or third link dedicated to debunkers and not the author - red f***ing flag and something's amidst.

Try googling "Electric Universe". There is a debunker with the top 3 search results. I don't know why you're even on this forum, with a thought process like that. BTW, the Latin name for that is argumentum ad populum.

[antosarai]

Oh please, Kiwi. Can we just stop the pretense of giving Charles the benefit of the doubt. He is repackaging consensus science to sell a philosophy, not science. These guys are a dime a dozen on the Web. They come with long convoluted bullshyte, and try to post as much verbose postings as possible so that they get into the high level result page. If you're doing a search on a well-published author, and you see that the first, or second, or third link dedicated to debunkers and not the author - red f***ing flag and something's amidst.

So much for a substantive debate, no rethoric cavillations...

[D_Archer]

I am confused by this debate, it is going nowhere.

I thought the point that should be addressed is the point that was mainly raised by me.

CC does not acknowledge galactic currents having anything to do with our sun, this is in direct opposition to EU.

Carry on.

Regards,
Daniel

[Sparky]

Daniel:

I am confused by this debate,--------CC does not acknowledge galactic currents having anything to do with our sun, this is in direct opposition to EU.

Thread is confusing!!! Distractions of fallacious arguments and tangents.

Charles is following the evidence. What evidence do you present for galactic currents supplying our sun?

in direct opposition to EU

More precisely, a faction of EU.

**************************************************

Aristarchus wrote:Oh please, Kiwi. Can we just stop the pretense of giving Charles the benefit of the doubt. He is repackaging consensus science to sell a philosophy, not science. These guys are a dime a dozen on the Web. They come with long convoluted bullshyte, and try to post as much verbose postings as possible so that they get into the high level result page. If you're doing a search on a well-published author, and you see that the first, or second, or third link dedicated to debunkers and not the author - red f***ing flag and something's amidst.

Repackaging consensus science?? Well,, it needs some adjustments! So what is wrong with coming up with a unique hypothesis that uses some of standard science?

Benefit of the doubt??!! Seems he is doing a good job, and the only doubters are those who do not understand, or who have their own agenda to defend!

"-first, or second, or third link dedicated to debunkers and not the author - red f***ing flag and something's amidst." Doesn't mean anything except that google has shown preferred links to debunkers! It may be a very controversial perspective that the "well-published author, is presenting. Or the well-published author, may be adept at getting papers published, whether valid or not. Lots of nonsense put out by "well-published authors"!

[CharlesChandler]

in direct opposition to EU

More precisely, a faction of EU.

Well put.

I acknowledge that the Sun is electrically powered, and that it is discharging into the heliosphere. There is evidence of 109 amps out at 1 AU in the heliospheric current sheet. This is only one millionth of the current that it would take to generate the 1026 watts that the Sun produces. At 10 AU, there is no detectable current at all. So I conclude that the current is tapering off with distance from the Sun. Going back in the other direction, we may well have the 1015 amps to do the job at the surface of the Sun, though it tapers off to 109 amps at 1 AU, and to nothing at all by the time it gets to 10 AU.

What kind of current would "taper off"? Note that I don't mean that the current density is relaxing -- I'm talking about the total current.

If it's a "catch-up" current, wherein +ions are being expelled from the Sun in CMEs, and thereafter expanding due to hydrostatic and electrostatic pressure, and if electrons are being expelled from the Sun by repulsion from like charges in the Sun, and attraction to opposite charges in the heliosphere, the velocity difference between +ions and electrons will be the greatest at the Sun itself, but which will taper off with distance from the Sun. And in that velocity difference lies the current. So it's an odd current, with both +ions and electrons traveling in the same direction. But the electrons are traveling faster, and that constitutes the current.

And I can justify 1015 amps at the surface of the Sun, if CMEs are positively charged. We have a fair idea of the mass in CMEs, and the rate at which they occur. If the bulk of that mass is hydrogen ions, we can count the number of atoms from the mass, and then calculate the total charge from the number of atoms and the charge per atom. That comes out to 1015 amps. So that's the right amount of charge separation to produce 1026 watts of power.

I acknowledge that the satellite data are sparse compared to what we'd like to have, leaving open the possibility that there is a galactic current that sneaks past the satellites. Of course, we don't need satellites to be INSIDE the current to measure it. Any substantial current would be detectable from a distance by the radiation it would give off (e.g., synchrotron). Still, we don't have sufficient data to prove that there are no other currents, having looked for such currents, and not having found them.

My take on all of this is that we don't have evidence of a galactic current, but we DO have evidence of a local current, within 10 AU of the Sun, and the rough numbers are within range for this to be the source of the Sun's power. So that's what I'm studying.

[Aristarchus]

1. The Sun is not an isolated point charge within a vacuum. It is a body that exists surrounded by a sea of plasma. So the application of classical (free-space) electrostatic analyses to the solar environment is in appropriate.

2. The solar plasma is generally quasi-neutral3, which means that the number of free elecrons and the number of positive ions within any reasonably sized volume (1m3 to 1km3) are equal. This is not to say that quasi-neutrality is strictly adhered to in all regions within the solar plasmashpere. It clearly is not. Maxwell’s equations can be used in limited and well-defined ways – especially in those regions of non-quasi-neutrality.

3. The solar plasma (as any plasma) is not an ideal, zero-resistance entity. However, plasma generally cannot support high-valued electric fields. Typically, if a high valued voltage drop is imposed between two points in plasma, a DL will form somewhere between those points, such that the greater part of the apllied voltage difference will occur within it. Because of this, only low-valued electric fields can and do exist within the solar plasmasphere (along with one or more such Dls).

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

Charles, refute what is stated by D. E. Scott as I previously posted. That is how a debate should take place. This is not Aristarchus vs Chandler. This is a debate on your accusations towards the positing of the model proposed by D. E. Scott and how your model, as you claim: "To my knowledge, my model is the only electric hypothesis that survives close scrutiny of the data."

I'm not interested in what you have to say about D. E. Scott's model/research, but rather, what D. E. Scott actually stated in quotes and your rebuttal.

Here is example of how it's done:

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

(1) Thompson says, “…scientists have found that they can observe the fully expected flux of neutrinos from proton-proton (p-p) fusion.‖ This is incorrect. The fusion reaction hypothesized by the standard solar model to be occurring inside the Sun‘s core must emit a flood of electron neutrinos. Although the total observed neutrino flux (of all types of neutrino) may approximate the required level for electron neutrinos, a sufficient flux of these crucial electron neutrinos can only be inferred if it is shown that they (e-neutrinos) can ‗oscillate‘ into different types of neutrinos (types which were not measured). The announcement made by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) that ―the SNO detector has the capability to determine whether solar neutrinos are changing their type enroute to Earth‖ is false on its face. There is no way that measurements made at only one end (here on Earth) of a transmission channel (that stretches from the Sun’s center to Earth) can reveal changes that occur farther up the channel (say, within the Sun itself, or near Mercury or Venus).

Consider a freight train that runs from New York to Chicago. We live in Chicago and are only able to observe the train as it arrives in Chicago. It pulls in with 4 freight cars, 2 tank cars, and 1 flat car. How is it possible, no matter how sophisticated our method of observation, for us to make any conclusions whatever about whether freight cars, tank cars, or flat cars have been added to or subtracted from the train at, say, Cleveland? Moreover, how is it possible to say that freight cars have turned into tank cars or flat cars along the route somewhere? The results of another more recent neutrino experiment, Fermilab‘s MiniBooNE experiment, can best be summarized by the lab‘s own statement, ―When the MiniBooNE collaboration opened the box and “unblinded‟ its data less than three weeks ago, the telltale oscillation signature was absent3.‖ Admittedly, the oscillation in question in this experiment involved so-called ‗sterile neutrinos‘ and was not directly applicable to the question of electron-neutrino into muon-neutrino transformation. None the less, it does not state that any kinds of neutrinos were seen to ‗oscillate‘ into any different type. At this writing (April 2007), therefore, the ‗missing neutrino‘ question still remains a very open question despite Thompson‘s statement that the neutrino deficit problem has been completely resolved.

(2) Thompson states, ―Scott, on the other hand, would skip the bother of verifying his results, and jump to the instantaneous conclusion that all of known physics must be wrong and must be replaced. That would be both illogical and unreasonable.‖ It is one of the ploys of pseudoskepticism to assert offhandedly that the proposed explanation violates some law of physics. To assert ―all of known physics must be wrong‖ is a symptom of panic. This is his only answer to my statement of fact that astrophysicists have never given close and careful examination to any alternative energy source for the Sun since Eddington‘s proclamation that it simply had to be nuclear fusion. The electric solar model is solidly based on plasma laboratory experiments and observed phenomena (such as double layers and plasma modes). It is the accepted fusion model that resorts to postulating the existence of an ‗unseen solar dynamo‘ that lurks below the Sun‘s surface and conveniently does everything necessary to support their hypothesis. The electric phenomena embodied in the electric Sun model have all been observed and worked with in plasma laboratory experiments for decades.

[kiwi]

Any substantial current would be detectable from a distance by the radiation it would give off (e.g., synchrotron).

Dont think that is correct .... Synchroton radiation denotes near relatavistic speeds? Don Scott has adressed that on the incoming "charge's" question...

Anyway ... Sparky, Daniel, Lloyd, Jacmac(?) and myself

Shall we all agree to stay out of this thread from here on in? .... and let Aristarchus and Charles have the floor? ..... for the sake of keeping on track without our layman interruptions would be better for all following the thread ... I will if you will

[Aristarchus]

What do we know about black holes? We know that they have a strong gravitational field, and that they don't produce any light, not even infrared radiation, which simply has to be present as matter gets compacted by the force of gravity.Near black holes, we know that matter being pulled in has been accelerated to relativistic speeds.

That is not the current line on black holes through the consensus science. If you're going to play coy and continue being pedantic, you should be able to actually live up to your claim of providing details. Ironically, if you had the current research regarding black holes, it would serve to perhaps foster your argument:

I'm maintaining that they are just a type of star, sometimes visible, sometimes not, in the same class as the so-called neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, quasars, BL Lac objects, white drawfs, and the stars at the centers of planetary nebulae.

Next ...

Try googling "Electric Universe". There is a debunker with the top 3 search results. I don't know why you're even on this forum, with a thought process like that. BTW, the Latin name for that is argumentum ad populum.

Oh, that's rich, questioning why I'm on this forum, coming from someone like you that unabashedly promotes his own work on this forum while at the same time is critical of D. E. Scott's research. Take note of my emphasis "while" before you attempt to defend yourself as to why it is acceptable to promote your own work here. I see nothing wrong with promoting your own work, but it appears you would prefer if no one is critical of it. You've been accused by other posters on this forum of avoiding and ignoring what they've posted in response to you, while at the same time taking on an air of arrogance that all we need do is ask you questions and all shall be revealed. Meanwhile, I'm posting research papers from D. E. Scott, and yet, you have the temerity to question why I'm on this forum. I see this as another attempt by you to shift the playing field and continue to avoid the issues or defend your errors.

As for googling "Electric Universe," I suggest you become familiar with recall and relevance as it pertains to a search query. As I instruct in my information literacy classes, one should begin a search with an open ended query using a Web based search engine, Wikipedia being a good starting point. From there the student should gather other search terms to specify a query that would be suitable for an academic database. At the time of my posting the day before, I had somewhere between fifteen - eighteen windows opened in two different web browsers, while at the same time assisting students. I was looking for specific research papers authored by D. E. Scott, so my search query was beyond something along the lines of "Electric Universe." I kept running into sites that were debunking sites and found it frustrating as I encountered this before on various other topics.

Ah, but the irony doesn't end there, because someone that has come to your defense on this topic rationalized that one could not be held responsible for what Google placed as relevant. Evidently, this person is not aware of how a web page has multiple ways it can become higher on the list of results, including search query intent.

[JeffreyW]

This discussion is above my pay grade.

[CharlesChandler]

Charles, refute what is stated by D. E. Scott as I previously posted.

OK.

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

1. The Sun is not an isolated point charge within a vacuum. It is a body that exists surrounded by a sea of plasma. So the application of classical (free-space) electrostatic analyses to the solar environment is inappropriate.

Yes, if the environment is charged, and/or if it has a non-vacuum permittivity, it changes the electrostatic calculations. I'm not sure that it all of a sudden becomes non-classical, but whatever.

2. The solar plasma is generally quasi-neutral, which means that the number of free electrons and the number of positive ions within any reasonably sized volume (1 m3 to 1 km3) are equal. This is not to say that quasi-neutrality is strictly adhered to in all regions within the solar plasmasphere. It clearly is not. Maxwell’s equations can be used in limited and well-defined ways – especially in those regions of non-quasi-neutrality.

I agree that there are charge separations, inside the Sun, between the Sun and the heliosphere, and within the heliosphere itself.

3. The solar plasma (as any plasma) is not an ideal, zero-resistance entity. However, plasma generally cannot support high-valued electric fields. Typically, if a high valued voltage drop is imposed between two points in plasma, a DL will form somewhere between those points, such that the greater part of the applied voltage difference will occur within it. Because of this, only low-valued electric fields can and do exist within the solar plasmasphere (along with one or more such DLs).

I agree that plasma (such as the 6000 K hydrogen in the photosphere) typically has a very low resistance. But I'm also maintaining that the extreme pressures inside the Sun separate charges into double-layers due to electron degeneracy pressure (EDP), leaving the core positively charged, surrounded by a layer of negative charge. Additional layers of charge can then form by induction. If different elements are present, there can be multiple thresholds for EDP, due of the different ionization potentials. So there can be positive layers outside of the core, by induction or by EDP. These are current-free double-layers (CFDLs) that can persist, even in the absence of any resistance whatsoever. But that's in my model, not Scott's. In his model, he is right that DLs form, but these are temporary, with a lifespan that is a function of the resistance. A sustained DL requires either perfect resistance, or a sustained charge separation mechanism.

To continue with more quotes from the same paper...

We know little or nothing about the strength of this field because we have no way of calculating or measuring the value of Q or E.

I'm currently investigating the possibility that we can measure E at the Sun's surface using the Stark Effect (i.e., spectral line splitting in an electric field). CosmicLettuce has been analyzing data from IRIS that might prove to be useful.

http://astroandmusic.blogspot.com/2014/ ... -last.html

To properly estimate the E-field, we'd have to subtract out the B-field, which is known by a similar mechanism (i.e., the Zeeman Effect). But I "think" that the two effects can be isolated, in which case we'd have a relatively direct reading of the E-field.

Consider that the heliopause (the outer edge of the solar plasmasphere) serves as the virtual cathode for the overall discharge.

This is the closest that he comes to actually stating the structure of his model, and he doesn't support this assertion in any way. The available data actually seem to contradict Scott's configuration.

Johnson, R., 2013: The Nature of the Sun Revisited. Electric Universe Conference (Albuquerque)

So let's look at the electrons in more detail. Štverák et al. (2009) tells us that the electron velocity distribution functions observed in the solar wind typically exhibit three different components: a core, a halo, and a strahl population. The strahl appears as a beam-like population moving away from the Sun along the magnetic field. Now in the figure, the strahl population is the white zone under the starred curve to the right here. And the thermal core is a normal Maxwell distribution. The non-thermal halo populations are symmetrically distributed non-Maxwellian distributions. The important point is that there is no corresponding strahl population on the left of the diagram, which is the part moving towards the Sun, as you can see from the velocity at the bottom is zero in the middle. So these are moving away. There are no strahl electrons moving toward the Sun over there. And that seems to be clear evidence that there are more electrons moving away from the Sun faster than the protons, because the baseline for these measurements is the protons. So taken together these various strands of evidence seem to argue against an anode Sun.

Štverák, Š. et al., 2009: Radial evolution of nonthermal electron populations in the low‐latitude solar wind: Helios, Cluster, and Ulysses Observations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics (1978–2012), 114 (A5)

Synchroton radiation denotes near relativistic speeds?

Not necessarily. More fundamentally, it's radiation from a current within an external magnetic field, but it certainly becomes more noticeable at relativistic speeds, so it's an indirect measure of speed.