IBEX slams electric sun model yet again

[Indras9]

I found this article on Tom Brigmans blog/website ending on this quote:

I suspect the Electric Sun (ES) advocates will continue to spin the IBEX result as a victory for their claims of the Sun and stars being powered by cosmic-scale external electric currents. They will, as always, have nothing but 'stories' and/or 'cartoons' to support their claims and nothing that matches any actual measurements or models that can be rigorously tested.

Will we ever see something like this from the Electric Sun supporters in a form that can be objectively reproduced by other researchers?

It's not impossible, but I'm not holding my breath.

Any thoughts on this?

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... again.html


Cheers

[keeha]

Seems like one day soon he should have his epiphany or perhaps more specifically a plasma hierophany.
He is presenting EU hypotheses and of course his ingrained big bangism is a form of untestable creationism.

[junglelord]

You can tell from his response. which is an adhomin attack, that his personal "hate" for the EU model has clouded his mind. Any adhomin attack has no credibility in the first place.

I loved the old stuff, never understood why they had so many problems.
Yet everything I "recited" was not testable nor provable.
Then I heard about the EU, which I love too.
We tend to be passionate when its love.
But there is a critical difference between their world view and ours.
Ours is testable and Birkeland started it along with Tesla and vacuum chambers over 100 years ago.
Modern Plasma Physics is where its at concerning space, as space is Plasma.
This intellectual, testable, predictable, science, is light years ahead of dark matter.
I feel bad for their spot in life, and suspect their motives.

[nick c]

I agree with JL, the ad hom tone to the attack is unprofessional as well as uncivil, and says more about the attackor than the attackee

For reference purposes,
Tom Bridgman wrote an extensive critique of Don Scott's Electric Sky here:
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/anomal ... 080322.pdf

To which Don Scott responded here:
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/RebutTB.pdf

Concerning the IBEX results, Wal Thornhill wrote:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=74fgmwne

Nick

[Solar]

As I suggested in "IBEX Results Cause Even More Problems for the Electric Sun Model", an explanation would most likely be found in more detailed consideration of the particle kinetics, and this mechanism certainly fits that description. The mechanism provides a simple explanation why the ribbon appears where the interstellar magnetic field is perpendicular to the line-of-sight.

I was done right there. Something so basic as the right-hand rule being mentioned then; totally ignored, in favor of the "particle kinetics" induced from those electromagnetic forces doesn't say much for what may follow. All of his "work" with regard to the EU is convoluted in this manner. We've seen this 'tactic' or purposeful 'misrepresentation' in several standard articles regarding cosmology. It's the excusatory 'double speak' of hubris used in attempts to reign credulity back towards the hopelessly crippled standard model.

Unlike those within the field of astrophysics and the like; the EU cannot be censored. It cannot be relegated to some obscure office in the basement of one of their institutions. Hence, plan 'B' are these attempts to discredit. Woefully pathetic though they be.

Miles Mathis does an excellent job of revealing this purposefully disingenuous characteristic.

I was also reminded of something Thornhill wrote regarding Bayes theorem:

The New Scientist article continues:
"Scientists begin with a range of rival explanations about some phenomenon, the observations come in, and then the mathematics of Bayesian inference is used to calculate the weight of evidence gained or lost by each rival theory. Put simply, it does this by comparing the probability of getting the observed results on the basis of each of the rival theories. The theory giving the highest probability is then deemed to have gained most weight of evidence from the data.”

Comment: Bayes’s idea of calculating “the probability of getting observed results on the basis of each of the rival theories” may be of some use in comparing small variations on initial beliefs, but it misconceives the situation when different initial beliefs are involved. “Observed results” are interactive with the theories that direct observers about what to observe, how to observe it, what value to put on it, and which way to interpret it. - Holoscience: "Whatever happened to real science?"

Brigman muddles his own waters refuting the very electromagnetic sources that he cites and misuses Bayesian methodologies with the best of them:

“I SAW THE DAMNED THING WITH MY OWN EYES! Don‟t start with the probability arguments, you dolt!”

[StefanR]

"That cannot be a coincidence," says McComas. But what does it mean? No one knows. "We're missing some fundamental aspect of the interaction between the heliosphere and the rest of the galaxy. Theorists are working like crazy to figure this out."

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 519#p27185


So now, which model had problems because of IBEX-findings?

[jjohnson]

Two uphill problems (among many) faced by the Electric Model are that research surveys and instruments are not geared toward "discovering" or analyzing the electric phenomena and their consequences proposed by the EU, and second, articles written by scientists working under the EU hypotheses are simply not published in "credible" peer-reviewed scientific journals. Either we are going to have to publish our own papers to a very high scientific standard with credible citations to source papers that the conventional community have reviewed and published, or the mainstream is going to choose to start investigating electric phenomena as part of their funded investigations.

For starters, I would put my money on publishing our own papers and continuing to provide good illustrations, since that may elicit more curiosity and interest among the more open-minded mainstream members of the astronomical community than our trying to compete for grant money and instrument selection responsibility before we have exhibited technical proficiency. Young astronomers still are not being instructed in the "forgotten" work by Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, and others in electrodynamics, nor in work by their successors including Peratt and Marklund, among others.

We just need to be patient and maintain a thick-skinned approach to ad hominem assaults from experts like Mr. Bridgeman. Bear in mind that his attacks seem all too accurate from the mainstreamers' perspective, and we have to get over that hump ourselves.

[earls]

This is by far my favorite:

"Of all the nuclear reactions in the proton-proton chain, only the first step, p + p = d + e+ + Ve, has NOT been observed in the laboratory"

lol, seriously? THE FIRST STEP.

He uses this as the cornerstone of his arguments, YET IT IS COMPLETELY UNVERIFIED.

Yes, his first section was nothing but personal attacks, and his "scientific failures" breakdown is rife with errors, assumptions, and just plain lies.

If he can't see the parallels in his disposition between himself and the "creationists" he purportedly persecutes, then why consider anything he has to say?

[saul]

Two uphill problems (among many) faced by the Electric Model are that research surveys and instruments are not geared toward "discovering" or analyzing the electric phenomena and their consequences proposed by the EU, and second, articles written by scientists working under the EU hypotheses are simply not published in "credible" peer-reviewed scientific journals.

I'm not sure how IBEX relates to Electric Sun (ES) theories, this would depend on the theory in question. IBEX never looks at the sun, but always 90 degrees (+- 4 degrees) from the sun. It is this geometry (in part) that allows us to avoid seeing the solar wind plasma.

If by ES it is meant that there is not nuclear fire in the sun, then we don't need IBEX. There is quite good proof that nuclear reactions are occurring in the sun, for example this picture:

http://apod.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980605.html

If however by ES we mean that electric currents and related effects are crucial to explain the dynamics of the sun, then there is little argument against it and IBEX only lends more support by showing the existence of the local interstellar magnetic field and its influence on the heliosphere.

In working with IBEX data we can see that space plasma instruments are -all- geared toward measuring electrical phenomena (I suppose that is inherent in the name "space plasma instruments"). With IBEX, we have a different approach and look only for neutral particles to avoid local electromagnetic effects. However, in the end the neutral particles observed show us about distant charged particle populations, as charge-exchange interactions allow some of these particles to become neutral and travel back to the Earth, into the IBEX apertures.

It looks to me like Tom Bridgman is not attacking proponents of EU, but rather proponents of a non-nuclear sun theory. I think he is doing a service to the EU community by taking us seriously, directing more traffic here, and making valid physical criticisms to help us refine our ideas.

Thanks for posting the link -

[junglelord]

Hi Saul
Not sure if your aware that the EU model, which is a Z Pinch model, creates heavy elements in a nuclear fussion event that occurs at the center of the Z Pinch event.

[nick c]

hi Saul,

There is quite good proof that nuclear reactions are occurring in the sun, for example this picture:

http://apod.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980605.html

That's not very convincing proof of an internal nuclear furnace on the Sun. That apod is only proof of how mainstream cannot let go of it's cherished theories, even when confronted with a large volume of adverse evidence. Some neutrinos would also be expected in the Electric Sun theory, as there would be fusion taking place on or near the surface (photosohere) of the Sun as current filaments in arc mode would fuse atoms via the z pinch effect. The result of this fusion would be the presence of metals, absorption lines in the solar spectrum. Nevertheless, the nuclear fusion model requires many more neutrinos than have been detected.
The problem of the missing neutrinos and the proposed solution by mainstream (and the apod) are dealt with by Scott in his book, The Electric Sky, chapter 6: "The Case of the Missing Neutrinos." That book is must reading, for anyone concerned with the issues raised by the EU.
There is an online summary here:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm

The high decibel level of rejoicing contained in the SNO pronouncements is unprofessional. It is a clue that should not be ignored. It stands in curious contrast to the existence of errors in fundamental logic contained in the report. The prime requirement in research is scientific objectivity. And (given the paucity of actual data that was collected) there is substantial reason to question to what extent a degree of wishful thinking went into the announced conclusions of this report.
There simply is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel. The only way such conclusions can be made is when observations have been made at more than one place along the path! Further measurements (MiniBooNE 2007) have found no evidence to support the SNO 2001 announcement.

Clearly, although the fusion model is beloved by its advocates, an objective analysis of the Sudbury and MiniBooNE experiments reveal that the missing neutrino problem still remains very far from being solved. And unless it is, the fusion model stands completely falsified.

The conjecture that neutrinos change flavor at some point in their journey is only a speculation, not proof of an internal nuclear reactor. You need to have a measurement made at the beginning of the journey and compare it to a measurement made later, along the way. This has not been done. So that can hardly be cited as convincing evidence of the Sun's internal nuclear furnace.

Nick

[nick c]

I see that Wal Thornhill has a new post on the holoscience site, of relevance to this thread:
"Our Misunderstood Sun"
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ah63dzac

“The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun’s energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun.” —Ralph E. Juergens (1980)

[GaryN]

JL:

Hi Saul
Not sure if your aware that the EU model, which is a Z Pinch model, creates heavy elements in a nuclear fussion event that occurs at the center of the Z Pinch event.

So there are heavy elements created, but you won't allow me that the Sun is creating hydrogen, helium, etc? Or am I misunderstanding you?

[junglelord]

Hydrogen into helium, lithium, beryillum, boron, carbon, nitrogen and forward, you must have misunderstood.
However the Z Pinch process makes heavy elements as well, without the sequence...is that your question?
Its not an either/or, its both.

[GaryN]

Sorry JL, it's the origin of hydrogen I was questioning.
From a previous post:

JL said:

Everything is opposite of what they tell you....everything.

I said:

So you believe that the Sun creates hydrogen, rather than consumes it?

I didn't get a reply, so I presumed you didn't agree. I don't think anyone in the EU camp has ever proposed that the Sun creates hydrogen. We really would be the black sheep of the scientific world then, wouldn't we? Maybe best if I stayed downstairs.