Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

[Lloyd]

CC said: 6) Either I'm slipping decimal points here and there, or something is seriously wrong with the precept that the solar wind is steadily streaming away from the Sun, and filling up the IPM with particles, so forcefully that it creates a bow shock where the IPM meets the interstellar medium [i.e. the heliopause? - LK]. Rather, the bulk of the solar wind is getting captured by the planets, and/or it is falling back into the Sun, and/or the estimates for its mass are way, way wrong.

Have you already confirmed that the solar wind matter does not leave the solar system, i.e. at the heliopause? Also, do you know where the readings for the IPM density were taken? Maybe the HCS is much denser than most of the IPM. Or are they able to measure the IPM density accurately in all directions with spectroscopy?

[CharlesChandler]

Have you already confirmed that the solar wind matter does not leave the solar system, i.e. at the heliopause?

I'm still tracking this down, but the latest data from Cassini seems to suggest that the heliosphere doesn't have a coma.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 101807.htm

In a paper published Oct. 15 in Science, researchers from the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) present a new view of the region of the sun’s influence, or heliosphere, and the forces that shape it. Images from one of the Magnetospheric Imaging Instrument’s sensors, the Ion and Neutral Camera (MIMI/INCA), on NASA’s Cassini spacecraft suggest that the heliosphere may not have the comet-like shape predicted by existing models.

“These images have revolutionized what we thought we knew for the past fifty years; the sun travels through the galaxy not like a comet but more like a big, round bubble” said Stamatios Krimigis, principal investigator for MIMI, which is orbiting Saturn. “It’s amazing how a single new observation can change an entire concept that most scientists had taken as true for nearly fifty years.”

If that's true, then the heliosphere should still have all of the solar wind that was ever produced. (?) And if that's true, the numbers don't add up for a unidirectional outward stream of both electrons and +ions in the solar wind. I'm starting to wonder if maybe all of the matter is recycled, and the IPM is sparsely populated just with a few stray particles. So CMEs would still eject +ions, which would still drive a net electron drift out of the Sun the rest of the time. But the ejected +ions don't just continue to fill up the IPM -- they fall back down into the Sun.

If that's true, it has major implications for my model. Previously, I had been going with the "ashes to ashes, dusty plasmas to dusty plasmas" concept, wherein the Sun would just continue to lose mass to the solar wind, until it had fully reconstituted the plasma cloud from which it originally condensed. But if the Sun actually isn't losing any mass, then no, that isn't what's going to happen. Rather, as the Sun continues to radiate its heat, it will just keep cooling down, until finally it just freezes over. Hence this is pointing to Wolynski's Stellar Metamorphosis as the most accurate representation of the entire life cycle.

So I'll have to research it some more, and then chase the implications all of the way through my model. That will take some time.

Also, do you know where the readings for the IPM density were taken? Maybe the HCS is much denser than most of the IPM. Or are they able to measure the IPM density accurately in all directions with spectroscopy?

I'm still tracking down the HCS data, but the IPM data came from a variety of sources, and they're all saying the same thing:

Pintéra, T.; Dorotoviča, I.; Rybanský, M., 2009: The heliosphere mass variations: 1996–2006. Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 4 (257): 291-293

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/C ... ns_wbg.png

[Aristarchus]

Does CC's use of footnotes not give readers quick means of verification of statements? If your info can provide help for getting his model exposed to the public and respected, I hope you can be persuaded to provide as much such helpful info as you can. Or do you need to be persuaded of the correctness of his model first? I appreciate any help.

Lloyd, that is not what I'm stating. The use of the footnote format is appropriate, but for a point of reference for our discussion on this forum it would help to have supportive shorter research papers from CC along with direct quotes from his sourced materials. Otherwise, in this discussion it comes off as an appeal to authority. There as to be a flow for the discussion.

The paper supplied by CC has something in the order of 126 references - well - the uniformity of a paper is to allow readers to quickly access information while comparing it to other papers

I argue that CC has written something that qualifies as monograph, not a research paper. There's nothing wrong with the former, but then there has to be shorter research for the particulars of those 126 references in the monograph. This is how one develops the thesis and submits it "uniformity."

We're on a forum discussing the the EU model. Look at the breakdown of the many topics and threads on this forum. CC will have to be challenged in the same way before simply claiming that he has given a detailed analysis for his model. CC can't jump to the head of the line and use Scott's and Thornhill's forum as a means to usurp the EU model and supplant his own without the same scrutiny as applied to the EU model.

[Lloyd]

Lloyd wrote: Have you already confirmed that the solar wind matter does not leave the solar system, i.e. at the heliopause?

CC said: I'm still tracking this down, but the latest data from Cassini seems to suggest that the heliosphere doesn't have a coma.

Is there any reason to assume that the heliosphere isn't expanding? A coma is the head of a comet. I think it's spherical. Isn't the heliosphere spherical? Or did they mean tail, when they said coma? I'm confused. How is it concluded from that that the solar wind matter doesn't leave the solar system? And, if it doesn't leave, it seems it could still be expanding the heliosphere.

Also, if the IPM were recycling into the Sun, how would that cool it (the Sun) down? I thought your model says matter falling into the Sun would increase its size and increase the sizes of the double layers. I mean wouldn't the infalling matter serve as fuel for solar radiation?

Aristarchus said: CC can't jump to the head of the line and use Scott's and Thornhill's forum as a means to usurp the EU model and supplant his own without the same scrutiny as applied to the EU model.

How is CC preventing anyone from scrutinizing his model? Your talk of uniformity sounds potentially meaningful, but I think it needs some clarification. If you know of proper procedures to improve scientific method, please state them clearly and fairly thoroughly. We've discussed improved scientific method, but it's always possible that we overlooked something.

[CharlesChandler]

We're on a forum discussing the the EU model.

Point of order: the NIAMI forum is not restricted to EU for/against discussions.

Is there any reason to assume that the heliosphere isn't expanding?

That's what I'm questioning. If there was a steady flow of solar wind away from the Sun, for more than 389 years, it should have created a heliosphere larger than 100 AU, at the stated density. So the question is: where is all of that solar wind going? And I'm starting to think that it rains back down onto the Sun.

Also, if the IPM were recycling into the Sun, how would that cool it (the Sun) down?

It would restore the gravitational loading, which forces the charge separation. Then, the electric fields remove degrees of freedom from particles, reducing the effective temperature. But that doesn't mean that there is a net loss of energy -- the heat has simply been converted to electrostatic potential, and will be recovered when the charges recombine (i.e., electrostatic potential converted back to kinetic energy).

Long-term, the cooling occurs only because heat is being radiated.

[Aristarchus]

OK -- what did you think of the number crunching that I did, concerning general star formation and/or the solar composition and/or the solar energy budget?

What I've read, in between the multiple other discussions on this thread, is that you have calculated numbers and then showed graphs corresponding to the results of those calculations. I did not see the formulas you used for your calculations - or the calculations themselves - and you simply referencing the formulas or mentioning that you have calculated does not count. D. E. Scott proposed the selective use of Maxwell equations for applying them to the Sun's electric field, and enumerated these formulas as to how and what should be used. This gives the proponents of the EU an avenue for quantitative analysis; however, as pointed out in another research paper, access to raw data is crucial for this endeavor.

The EU is a paradigm shift. When the current paradigm is confronted with something like the EU model or Plasma Physics, the current paradigm acts counter-intuitive and increases an already laden with theories, more theories of speculative positing confirmed by mathematics, announcing its coming collapse. Your model is an attempt to prevent this recognized oncoming collapse by offering another flavor to support something along the Ptolemy solar system model. The Ptolemy system could have gone on ad nauseam, but there was a paradigm shift. There was a revolutionary change in cultural concepts, not because one could no longer apply theories to the Ptolemy system, but because the mindset of the culture had changed to allow an introduction of a new concept towards our understanding of the solar system.

With that said, let us proceed to the question of the neutrinos for an internally ignited Sun that provides metrics for sunshine experienced on Earth. Yes, neutrinos do have mass, but, as argued with the nonsense of today's science, is it enough to qualify as mass? Seriously, folks, this is what they posit with a straight face. This is the position of mainstream science today. There are, as established currently, three types of neutrinos, electron, muon, and tau, and get this: "The neutrino was first created 10-4 seconds after the big bang."

http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~larson/Webpa ... rinos.html

How's that for inferring an observation? Are your bullshyte detectors going off yet?

Neutrinos were introduced because energy and momentum defied conservation in radioactive decay, and it just so happens that one could use neutrinos to comport with the Big Bang model. In other words, you could observe a spin and give it a name.

Now, one had to conflate this aspect of neutrinos to an internally ignited Sun, but the measurements of the former did not comport to the theory. There was 1/3 the estimate of neutrinos found contradicting the theory, no matter how the science tried to twist in the wind to maintain the theory. Only 1/3? Not only that, but they could not account for all three neutrinos, or at least the two missing cousins, and even the first cousin did not meet the requirements of the metrics supporting the theory. At one time, it was even suggested to introduce a new physics to explain this discrepancy - but when that failed - you might rely on a Charles Chandler to obfuscate with high sounding physics. just throw another set of theories upon the already burden paradigm.

Now, to make up for this 1/3 cup full, one has to add another kludge factor, ad hoc assumption. The other two missing components, ignoring what happened to the accurate prediction of the metrics of the only measured neutrino, was now to assume that the three neutrinos were oscillating one from to the other. We can rely on CC to indicate that this has been verified. CC has to take the data of 1/3 and supply and then extrapolate the difference based of his model, and thus he has to introduce something along the lines of an electrically powered Sun - he's done the calculations, but only supplies the results in a graph.

However, the neutrinos have to comport with an internally ignited Sun, but CC has admitted that this is not the case. CC has introduced an internally ignited Sun, but that the neutrinos are not fully responsible for this, because the measurements of an electrically charged Sun born from an unsourced internal ignition, that is, compelled from a charge looping back into Sun somewhere on the outer layers of the Sun, makes up the difference. CC will try to smoke me out on this with more convoluted high sounding physics, but remember, CC does not believe in an externally charged Sun. Let CC contradict me and explain it in laymen's term for a nine year old. He can't, because it exists in the fabric of physics defined not in observation, but the commandeering of theories to support a cultural concept.

Charles, where is the nuclear fusion taking place specifically on the Sun that measures the neutrinos? Neutrinos measure the amount of nuclear fusion - where is that taking place on the Sun?

[Aristarchus]

Point of order: the NIAMI forum is not restricted to EU for/against discussions.

What are you arguing now? That you have only presented your EU against/for positing on this forum in the NIAMI threads? Seriously? That you have not presented an argument ridiculing the EU on this forum elsewhere on other threads? Charles, we can go back to the other thread where this all started, and then see that I suggested that this should be submitted to the NIAMI:

Staying on topic within our argument, and if this gets so beyond the topic of this thread, I would suggest it gets ordained to the NIMI topic, where we can do battle - I'm a Viking at heart ... and a coward ... lol ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 6&start=30

Otherwise, your attempt at plausible deniability is lame, and appears to expose deception on your part. When I made a suggestion that this is reserved for the NIAMI, you made damn sure that you would dictate the course of that topic in a panic to present your model.

This discussion was born from an against/for discussion of the EU model, but now in desperation, you want it to be about Charles model.

Yeah, that's a lot a gravitational loading on your part.

[CharlesChandler]

I did not see the formulas you used for your calculations - or the calculations themselves - and you simply referencing the formulas or mentioning that you have calculated does not count.

Which calculations do you want to see?

D. E. Scott proposed the selective use of Maxwell equations for applying them to the Sun's electric field, and enumerated these formulas as to how and what should be used.

Yes, but he didn't plug in any real numbers, nor establish the plausibility of his model. So for him, it's an undistributed middle.

Your model is an attempt to prevent this recognized oncoming collapse by offering another flavor to support something along the Ptolemy solar system model.

How did you get me figured as a mainstreamer, trying to preserve the existing paradigm? The existing paradigm in the mainstream is QM, GR, MHD, CDM, MOND, etc. I reject all of that stuff. For that reason, the mainstream has rejected me. The paradigm shift in my work is that I, like many in the EU, consider the electric force to be dominant. So it isn't a gravity-based Universe, with some EM anomalies. It's an EM Universe, with some gravitational anomalies. I "think" that this puts me squarely within the EU mindset, though I disagree on many of the details.

Charles, where is the nuclear fusion taking place specifically on the Sun that measures the neutrinos? Neutrinos measure the amount of nuclear fusion - where is that taking place on the Sun?

In arc discharges.

Mozina, M.; Ratcliffe, H.; Manuel, O., 2006: Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle. Journal of Fusion Energy, 25: 107-114

[Aristarchus]

Which calculations do you want to see?

Hhmm ... how about the ones that support your graph? You claimed you made calculations, and what formula were they based - and yes, I'm sticking to the word formula. That's how I think it works: you calculate through a formula and/or equation, and then present it on a graph. You supply the latter, but not the former.

Aristarchus wrote:
Charles, where is the nuclear fusion taking place specifically on the Sun that measures the neutrinos? Neutrinos measure the amount of nuclear fusion - where is that taking place on the Sun?

In arc discharges.

Let me try this again. Are neutrinos a result of the internal ignition of the Sun? Are they a result of the process of hydrogen fused into helium? If yes, arc discharges can only be the corresponding reaction from that internal ignition, then how are the latter the result of the measurement of the sunshine displayed on Earth. If no, what is the empirical evidence of the internal ignition of the Sun? What, according to your model, is going on in the Sun's core? If your Sun is not externally powered, the arc discharges have to feed back into the Sun, thus the Sun has to be a self contained unit while at the same time providing Sunlight to the Earth. It seems to me your model is doing two things at once, without making up the difference in metrics.

[CharlesChandler]

Which calculations do you want to see?

Hhmm ... how about the ones that support your graph?

Out of the hundreds of graphs that I've done, I'm guessing (as I usually have to do in this discussion) that you mean this one:

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/12790_wbg.png

The code for this is here:

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=11048

The text explains what the code is doing (i.e., I just set up the point charges in various configurations, and calculate the electric force from each point, to each point, and add it all up).

Are neutrinos a result of the internal ignition of the Sun?

I don't know what you mean by "internal ignition". If you mean the "fusion furnace" model, where gravitational loading is causing nuclear fusion in the core of the Sun, the answer is "no" -- in my model, there isn't any fusion going on in the core. My model has 6th period elements (i.e., osmium and platinum) in the core, which ain't gonna fuse into anything heavier. All of the fusion is in arc discharges within 125 Mm of the surface.

If your Sun is not externally powered, the arc discharges have to feed back into the Sun, thus the Sun has to be a self contained unit while at the same time providing Sunlight to the Earth. It seems to me your model is doing two things at once, without making up the difference in metrics.

I have no idea what you mean by this. A campfire has its own "internal" source of fuel (i.e., wood), and it lights up the whole campsite -- thus it does two things at once, if you want to look at it that way. But that doesn't make a paradox out of it.

[Aardwolf]

If that's true, it has major implications for my model. Previously, I had been going with the "ashes to ashes, dusty plasmas to dusty plasmas" concept, wherein the Sun would just continue to lose mass to the solar wind, until it had fully reconstituted the plasma cloud from which it originally condensed. But if the Sun actually isn't losing any mass, then no, that isn't what's going to happen. Rather, as the Sun continues to radiate its heat, it will just keep cooling down, until finally it just freezes over. Hence this is pointing to Wolynski's Stellar Metamorphosis as the most accurate representation of the entire life cycle.

So I'll have to research it some more, and then chase the implications all of the way through my model. That will take some time.

Is it conceivable that the mass lost by the sun is being gained by the planets...

[Sparky]

CC:

All of the fusion is in arc discharges within 125 Mm of the surface.

At one time, did you say that neutrinos, from a fusion core, would be absorbed by matter of the sun and not make it to Earth?

[CharlesChandler]

Is it conceivable that the mass lost by the sun is being gained by the planets...

Yes!

But first, let me update everybody on more numbers that I ran. Not satisfied with the sketchy estimates of the average density of the interplanetary medium, I went back to what seemed to be the most accurate data on the subject, which was this graph:

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/C ... ns_wbg.png

from this paper:

Pintéra, T.; Dorotoviča, I.; Rybanský, M., 2009: The heliosphere mass variations: 1996–2006. Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 4 (257): 291-293

The authors don't say the average density for the whole IPM, but they give a heuristic best-fit formula...

log(Nproton) = 0.856 - (2.03 * (log(r[AU])))

So I wrote this code to find the actual number of protons in the IPM:

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=12354

The results were astounding. The actual mass of the IPM is only 4.65 × 1016 kg, which is 3 orders of magnitude less than my previous estimate, given rougher numbers. And instead of it taking 389 years for the solar wind to generate that much mass, it would take less than a year. So clearly, just about all of that mass is going somewhere other than the IPM.

If all of it got captured by the Earth, it would increase the mass by one billionth of its total in a year's time. We'd probably notice. But Jupiter is 1000 times more massive, so it would only increase the mass by one trillionth every year. Maybe they wouldn't notice. But the most likely scenario is that some of it falls back into the Sun, while anything that gets ejected into the IPM gets picked up by the planets/moon/comets/asteroids/etc.

I don't know how to further refine these results. We can't just look at gravitational anomalies and expect them to be straight indicators of changes in mass, since it is more likely that electric charges are playing around with attractive forces between the planets.

But this definitely blows away my "ashes to ashes, dusty plasmas to dusty plasmas" precept. Now it's looking more like "dusty plasmas to dark stars".

[CharlesChandler]

At one time, did you say that neutrinos, from a fusion core, would be absorbed by matter of the sun and not make it to Earth?

I'm not sure, but I don't think that this would be correct -- supposedly, neutrinos can go through just about anything, and eventually, whatever gets (supposedly) produced inside the Sun will find its way out. At least that's my understanding of the mainstream thinking. But like I said elsewhere, I don't believe that fusion is occurring in the core.

[Sparky]

whoops... did I mean neutrons?

they are all so small I have trouble seeing which is which...