Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

[CharlesChandler]

whoops... did I mean neutrons?

I know what you mean... sub-atomic particles all look alike to me... Anyway, free neutrons would either become part of the nucleus of an atom, or would decay back into a proton and electron within 15 minutes or so.

[Lloyd]

Sparky said: 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?

Since you later said you may have meant neutrons, I can comment. We did discuss neutrons. I found online a statement that neutrons are formed in lightning on Earth. So we discussed the likelihood that the arc discharges in the Sun, but not in its core, produce neutrons in the Sun, but I don't remember if there was anything significant about that.

[Sparky]

Lloyd:

I don't remember if there was anything significant about that.

Well, it is significant in showing that standard theory is falsified. Neutrons can't emerge from the core, but are produced in the plasma discharges. The observation of 1/3 less than expected from fusion at the core is probably ignored as an anomalous unimportant anomaly by standard theory, but is probably in line with EU.

[nick c]

Well, it is significant in showing that standard theory is falsified. Neutrons can't emerge from the core, but are produced in the plasma discharges. The observation of 1/3 less than expected from fusion at the core is probably ignored as an anomalous unimportant anomaly by standard theory, but is probably in line with EU.

I am not sure about this? are we confusing neutrinos with neutrons? If neutrons were emerging from the Sun's core would not they break down probably by the time we are able to detect them? In other words the neutrons would decay and we would detect only protons and electrons.

[Lloyd]

Neutrons & Neutrinos
Sparky, you still have them mixed up. Neutrons are like protons, size-wise and location-wise, in that protons and neutrons are the constituents of the nucleus of an atom or ion (an ion being an atom or molecule with too many or too few electrons in the shell to have normal neutral charge).

Neutrinos are much smaller, toward the size of a photon.

Arc discharges make neutrons and possibly some atoms/elements in the Sun. Those neutrons seldom leave the Sun. It's mostly just electrons and protons that leave the Sun in the solar wind. There are only a few positive ions found in the solar wind, which contain some neutrons. Neutrinos don't leave the Sun in the solar wind, but are much faster and I think less numerous than solar wind particles.

Here's what Wikipedia says about how neutrinos form.

Neutrinos are created as a result of certain types of radioactive decay, or nuclear reactions such as those that take place in the Sun, in nuclear reactors, or when cosmic rays hit atoms. There are three types, or "flavors", of neutrinos: electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos and tau neutrinos. Each type is associated with an antiparticle, called an "antineutrino", which also has neutral electric charge and half-integer spin. Whether or not the neutrino and its corresponding antineutrino are identical particles has not yet been resolved, even though the antineutrino has an opposite chirality to the neutrino.

Since cosmic rays (which are high velocity protons and other usually positive ions, coming mostly from outside the solar system) hit everything in the solar system, they must hit things on the Sun too. So they should form neutrinos when they hit solar plasma. It's possible that arc discharges also produce neutrinos, but I haven't heard about that so far. But the mainstream scientists' prediction of how many neutrinos are formed in the Sun was found to be 3 times higher than what are observed from the Sun.

[Sparky]

hmmm, I was thinking of neutrons produced during fission and fusion. Not able to escape through the sun.

[Aristarchus]

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).

I didn't state any particular graph that you submitted, but rather, I was referring to how you're presenting this material to the reader. You explain in the text what you're doing with the code, but the code should represent an equation according to the laws of physics. In other words did you apply: the planar sheath equation, Bohm sheath criterion, and/or Child–Langmuir Law? If so, how do these equations and theories from physics comport to what you're doing within the code?

D. E. Scott explains how the Maxwell equations should be applied according to his EU model, and I already stated that might be difficult without access to raw data. It reveals to the reader a set of positing that follows what should follow as quantitative analysis. It appears to me that we keep looking at various angles of your model, but there isn't any cohesion to it.

As for the issue of the neutrinos, the 1/3 solution from the consensus science isn't anything that solves with any confidence support for your model. The neutrino problem has not been solved, and poses more of a challenge for particle physics than it does for the model of the Sun. Your model is relying on something that is inconclusive regarding neutrinos:

The measurement and decided masses of the three neutrinos is far from actually being solved. All the consensus science has done is introduced a new theory concerning neutrino output from the Sun, and now is faced with the task of measuring specifically the quantitative analysis for that new theory pertaining to oscillation, but that is an unknown until they can categorically state the mass or non-mass of the neutrinos.

The standard computer model of the Sun predicts that most solar neutrinos have energies that are below the detection thresholds for the water detectors. If the standard solar model is correct, water detectors are sensitive to only about 0.01% of the neutrinos the Sun emits. The remaining 99.99% must be observed in the future with new detectors that are sensitive to relatively low energies.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ ... s/bahcall/

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.

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

[CharlesChandler]

In other words did you apply: the planar sheath equation, Bohm sheath criterion, and/or Child–Langmuir Law? If so, how do these equations and theories from physics comport to what you're doing within the code?

I set up a distribution of point sources as they would be in Debye cells, and then calculated the electric and gravitational forces between all of those points, using Coulomb's Inverse Square Law and Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Then I summed the results, to determine whether the net body force was attractive or repulsive, and to what degree.

[Aristarchus]

Charles,

Where is the Coulomb's Inverse Square Law equation in the text explaining the code. Here is your published paper discussing the issue, and you supply a graph without the equations:

http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1404.0022v1.pdf

Now, look at the following paper and notice the breakdown of the equation to explain what is proposed in the paper:

I suggest the readers go to page 3 of the paper below:

http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~callen/chap1.pdf

I await your response regarding the neutrino oscillation and the metrics to explain the 1/3.

The standard computer model of the Sun predicts that most solar neutrinos have energies that are below the detection thresholds for the water detectors. If the standard solar model is correct, water detectors are sensitive to only about 0.01% of the neutrinos the Sun emits. The remaining 99.99% must be observed in the future with new detectors that are sensitive to relatively low energies.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ ... s/bahcall/

How does one even account for the missing 99.99% on a Bell curve? You claim not to be stuck on the consensus science, but you do have faith in its predictability for your model, an allowance you do not extend to D. E. Scott. The latter does not have access to the raw data, or an observation from a probe based on his paradigm.

[CharlesChandler]

Where is the Coulomb's Inverse Square Law equation in the text explaining the code. Here is your published paper discussing the issue, and you supply a graph without the equations:

http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1404.0022v1.pdf

It's on page 3, right next to Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation.

I await your response regarding the neutrino oscillation and the metrics to explain the 1/3.

Nuclear fusion IS going on inside the Sun, at least in solar flares. Neutrino flux is just one of the ways to confirm it -- free neutrons and gamma rays are others. And I'm contending that solar flares are arc discharges, and that there are many discharges that we don't see, because they occur too deep inside the Sun. The deepest energy source inside the Sun that produces evidence that is observable is whatever drives the supergranules, which I'm maintaining is arc discharges 125 Mm below the surface. Since the supergranules occur constantly, so too the discharges would have to be occurring constantly, and if near-surface discharges (i.e., solar flares) produce fusion, so too would the deep discharges. The preliminary stages of fusion have been observed in lightning here on Earth, so this isn't a stretch.

Now, does fusion account for precisely 1/3 of the total power produced by the Sun? I don't know. The mainstream contends that it produces 3/3, but I consider their "proofs" to be suspect, since it took an ad hoc modification of QM (i.e., neutrino flavor changing) to enable the "proof". So I just go with the original estimate, that the neutrino count is consistent with only 1/3 of the total power output. This leaves the other 2/3 unexplained, which is where I invoke EM to supply the missing power. With the available data, that's as good as it gets.

You claim not to be stuck on the consensus science, but you do have faith in its predictability for your model, an allowance you do not extend to D. E. Scott. The latter does not have access to the raw data, or an observation from a probe based on his paradigm.

Ummm... Scott doesn't have access to raw data, so he isn't required to show how his model matches up with the data, but you fault me for a lack of quantified assertions. And yet I AM quantifying my assertions, and I'm showing the math. I'm even providing run-able code, which is far more convenient for a serious critic. But when I provide quantifications, you fault me for being stuck on consensus science, because matching up theory with real data invariably involves reliance on data collection and interpretation methods? Again, you're arguing from whichever side of the tracks seems most convenient at the time, not realizing that your criticisms, taken together, are self-defeating. Thus they are purely argumentative. And again, this is how people argue when they can't find fault with the actual intrinsic merit of what you're saying -- they criticize you for using the improper footnote style for the size of document in question, or whatever else they can pick on.

[Aristarchus]

Now, does fusion account for precisely 1/3 of the total power produced by the Sun? I don't know.

You had to think about your response didn't you? (LMAO) Fusion account for 1/3? No. 1/3 of the neutrinos that oscillate between the three types of neutrinos, and 99.99% unaccounted for until future devices of detection can prove the model. How can you involve this giant assumption into your model, which you claim is the best detailed analysis? Seriously?

You're all over the map on this. I'm going to listen music and pick up my research on a later day. I already have the links, but I do a bit of multi-tasking. Just another pedantic response from you - long winded - signifying nothing - and you pick and choose what data to observe and ignore, and yet. you have a giant assumption staring you in the face that you can't answer with the brevity of a premise. Plu-eeze.

[Aristarchus]

BTW, Charles, how do you incorporate the mass or non-mass of the neutrinos, based upon all three, into your model? Cite your sources.

[CharlesChandler]

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

Both the x and y axes in that graph are on log scales, masking the sharpness of the drop-off in the proton density, per distance from the Sun. Here are the same data, from .1 to 1 AU, with linear scales:

This makes it hard to believe that there is anything at all going on further out. Yet of course we see the direct influence of the HCS on the aurora, especially for Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn. So I'm going to investigate the possibility that the ONLY significant thing going on beyond .5 AU is a direct linkage of the HCS to the larger, magnetized planets (Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn), where the converging magnetic field lines suck the charged particles out of the heliosphere and into their atmospheres, by latching onto the axial magnetic fields in the Birkeland currents.

Brant: are the heliospheric data going to let me get away with this? The plots that I saw when we were chatting earlier didn't show the IPM giving any deference at all to the magnetized planets. Then again, maybe I'm looking for very narrow filaments, and if a satellite did happen to pass through one of them, perhaps it would have been dismissed as a transient and inexplicable surge, which wouldn't show up on the heliospheric plots?

[Aristarchus]

Charles must ignore the data. His graph is to introduce an explanation of the data, but we can't rely on that, because it is seen through the lens of the paradigm - equation - formula. 99.99%$ unanswered for ... more convoluted language ... I'm tired ... goodnight.

[CharlesChandler]

Charles must ignore the data. His graph is to introduce an explanation of the data, but we can't rely on that, because it is seen through the lens of the paradigm - equation - formula. 99.99%$ unanswered for ... more convoluted language ... I'm tired ... goodnight.

What???

The researcher compiled the data from CORONA, HELIOS, PIONEER-VENUS, WIND, ACE, SOHO, ULYSSES, and Voyager 2, and plotted them all on the same graph, which revealed that the proton densities per distance from the Sun are very regular. He then derived the formula for the best-fit curve passing through the data points. I used that formula to generate a plot with linear scales for the axes, instead of logarithmic, to better show how sparse the outer IPM is, compared to nearer the Sun.

How is that ignoring the data? How is a graph of the data introducing an explanation of the data? It's just a graph of the data. And to do a graph of the data, I couldn't ignore the data, or the graph would have been blank. And these are not modeled data -- they are instrumented data, which are not "paradigm - equation - formula" dependent, at least not in this context. Whether or not the raw proton counts were accurate is potentially debatable. But when the same instruments consistently get readings that vary directly with distance from the Sun, the relative counts are tough to refute, and that's the point here.

I don't know who you think you're defending, or for that matter, who you think you're attacking, but with statements like these, you're really not doing anything at all except wasting everybody's time. Please put up the effort to make focused statements that accurately represent the issues.