Higgsy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:28 amI don't see either a) how an online discussion with the "professor" constitutes actually knowing their work, what they know, and what they think and b)in any case how your disagreement with hm can justify your attempt to drag me into that long past discussion.
First of all you dragged yourself into the discussion with this comment:
It seems clear from this that neither of you know any physics students or physicists, or indeed have much idea about the courses in physics departments.
I've probably talked to well over a 100 astronomers and physicists over the last 15 years, including discussions at LMSAL (in person) and many online conversations and email exchanges. Koberlein is one such fine specimen that clearly demonstrates that even astronomy "professors" are utterly clueless when it comes to EU/PC theory and plasma physics in general. Regardless of what classes he might have taught over the years, he doesn't apparently have the ability to comprehend anything he reads about EU/PC theory correctly, or present the model honestly. I could cite some additional examples if you like.
The questions were rhetorical.
You seem to ask a lot of rhetorical questions with obvious answers which I personally find to be quite annoying frankly. Why ask me if you already know the answer?
But as we are here, I wonder what you mean by saying that you assume their model predicts the measured number of neutrinos? Either they do or they don't. If you are claiming that they do, I suppose you have a reference which supports that
I cited an appropriate reference from Scott's book at Koberlein's website which predicts fusion near the surface and variation in output over the solar cycle. I can' recall reading a *quantified* explanation from Juergen's, Scott or Thornhill, but they were/are well aware of the measured number and an anode model is actually more "flexible" that most solar models in terms of the range they might predict.
My view of the matter is that there is no such thing as "EU/PC theory" as everyone seems to have a different idea as to what that constitutes
Pfft. Do you have any idea how many different inflation models and dark matter models there are to choose from these days? Pots and kettles.
- you only have to consider the posts of the EU/PC adherents on this forum.
Well, I'd certainly grant you that various individuals hold differing beliefs, but AFAIK, there's only one 'cosmology" model that's been quantified and described in scientific literature, specifically the model proposed by Alfven and Peratt. On the other hand there are three radically different solar models to choose from in EU/PC theory (and several minor variations on the same theme), including an externally powered anode model (Juergens), an internally powered cathode version (Birkeland) and an internally powered semi-standard model (Alfven). None of them predict "no neutrinos" however. Admittedly, such variation leads to divergence in belief even within the EU/PC community. That's not so radically different however from the the various "dark matter" models there are to chose from, including wimps, axions, simps, sterile neutrinos, MACHOS, etc within the mainstream cosmology model. Don't even get me started on the different variations of inflation theory, quintessence models, multiverse models, etc. Like I said, pots and kettles.
Having said that, one common theme of EU/PC proponents is the proposition that the Sun is powered electrically rather than by thermonuclear reaction. But even though that is a common theme, I am not sure whether you, personally do.
Actually, as it relates to solar theory, I personally prefer Birkeland's internally powered cathode solar model.
Regarding your characterisation of astronomers' knowledge of plasma physics, some are knowledgeable about the subject and some are not depending on whether their particular area of interest calls for such a knowledge. What is certain is that plasma physics is taught, at least as an elective subject, in every good physics department to a level that is vastly more sophisticated than anything discussed in detail on this forum. I say that from an intimate knowledge of university physics courses.
Well, Alfven wrote MHD theory and he referred to "magnetic reconnection" concepts as "pseudoscience" till the day that he died. Furthermore he asserted that his double layer paper made the whole concept irrelevant and obsolete. When you talk about "sophisticated", you're essentially talking about MHD models which Alfven flat out rejected in favor of circuit theory when describing high energy events in plasma. Alfven's models are much more "sophisticated" than mainstream models when it comes to using circuit theory to describe high energy events in plasma.
Furthermore, if my conversations at JREF/ISF are any indication, most astronomers cannot even tell the physical or mathematical difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum and the process in plasma of transferring magnetic field energy into particle acceleration known as "magnetic reconnection". In fact they all seem to erroneously believe there's a unique physical transfer process that *isn't* actually just induction, in spite of not being able to show a single plasma physic experiment where any such clear and obvious physical difference was ever actually demonstrated.
Have you even read Peratt's book "Physics of the plasma universe"? It's quite "sophisticated" from the standpoint of mathematical modeling.
Then you'll have to explain these quotations from his paper published near the end of his life that I cited above:
"The certainty that the Sun generates its prodigious outpourings of energy through thermonuclear reactions deep in its interior has been with us about half a century. But now, suddenly, suspicions are being voiced that this may not be the case after all. Doubts have been raised by recent findings on several fronts. Probably the most distressing of these discoveries concerns the sub-atomic particles called neutrinos, which ought to be showering down on us from the Sun but apparently aren't...The null result of the solar-neutrino experiments, which still go on, has been a fact of astrophysical life for more than a decade....So the Sun fails to emit neutrinos in detectable numbers"
In any case, it is clear that Juergens, to the end of his life, thought solar neutrinos did not exist, whatever the opinion of the general physics community was at that time. In fact the cited paper is clear that his position wasn't that electrical energy suplemented thermonuclear energy as a source for the Sun's radiation, but that electrical phenomena explained it all. In the paper he calls into question the very concept of controlled (ie non-explosive) thermonuclear reactions.
Um, you left out some important parts of that paper as it relates to neutrinos:
Suppose we let John N. Bahcall and Raymond Davis, Jr., two researchers who have followed this trail for a long time, tell part of the story:
"For the past 15 years we have tried, in collaboration with many colleagues in astronomy, chemistry, and physics, to understand and test the theory of how the sun produces its radiant energy (observed on the earth as sunlight). All of us have been surprised by the results: there is a large, unexplained disagreement between observation and the supposedly well established theory. This discrepancy has led to a crisis in the theory of stellar evolution; many authorities are openly questioning some of the basic principles and approximations in this supposedly dry (and solved) subject.
Obviously he was well aware that *some* electron neutrinos had been measured, they just didn't agree with mainstream theory at that time.
Scott and Thornhill both assume that the sun generates fusion near the solar surface which varies over time. I can look up the thread where I quoted their books if you like, but you can read several quotes about neutrinos/fusion by both Thornhill and Scott on the internet with a simple Google search. Note that Koberlein cited two books written much later by Scott and Thornhill as his reference material for his blog description of a modern anode solar model, not Juergens. Regardless of what Juergen's might have believed in the 70's, Koberlein still flat out lied about more modern versions of anode solar models. No EU/PC solar model that I'm aware of, including Juergen's original model predicted that the sun emits "no neutrinos". That's a flat out lie by a so called "professor' of astronomy. Sheesh.
I need say no more. You reinforce my point.
Likewise I don't really need to say much more than what Koberlein has already written on his blog as it relates to astronomers knowledge of actual physics. Essentially Koberlein just lied through his teeth and not a single so called "professional" or EU/PC "skeptics" ever even tried to correct his bonehead errors. That says it all about their lack of integrity and/or their complete ignorance of this topic, and physics in general.
For the record, I haven't seen you personally go out of your way to intentionally *misrepresent* EU/PC models or my beliefs which is frankly rather refreshing. I might be painting with an overly broad brush at times, and probably so with respect to you personally. However, I've been around the internet long enough to know that most of what astronomers think that they know about EU/PC theory is flat our wrong, and 95 percent of their own model amounts to nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance. Furthermore, their models of plasma based on "magnetic reconnection" have yet to produce a working full sphere corona in a lab, or sustained high temperature coronal loops, or any of the things that Birkeland accomplished in a lab over a century ago based on circuit theory.
Since 95 percent of the LCDM model amounts to placeholder terms for human ignorance, it's hard to say what astronomers today actually "know" about real empirical (working laboratory) physics, save perhaps GR theory, but even then they tend to kludge up GR theory with unnecessary metaphysics, and physically unsupported (in the lab) claims that blatantly violate the conservation laws of physics. Their knowledge of actual working laboratory physic and their ability to correctly 'predict" the outcome of laboratory tests is less than impressive actually. In fact, their predictive track record in the lab with respect to "dark matter" is downright embarrassing IMO.