The Futility Of Opposition?

[Michael Mozina]

BeAChooser

Where in anything I've posted here have I mentioned the anode sun model? I haven't because 99.99% of the money being spent by the mainstream that I'm complaining about hasn't a thing to do with the way the sun works. Maybe we can talk about that rather then this tangent of yours?

It is not a tangent to say the Anode sun model does not work.
I agree with that statement, and I have been supporting the general EU positions for about ten years.
The anode sun model is the one supported by the majority of posters on this forum, by my observations.
But the EU community does not have a detailed model, scheme, or complete idea of how the sun works, in my opinion.

But so what? The mainstream doesn't have a detailed model of dark matter or dark energy. Where does any of it even come from? The whole belief that we are obligated to have a "model" that meets their personal requirements is absurd IMO. Their so called "model" of the universe is a metaphysical joke. It's math with magic. None of works in the lab, although at least SAFIRE is able to create sustained hot plasma, which is more than the mainstream is capable of doing with 'magnetic reconnection'.

I too think the anode model isn't the "right" one, but it does actually produce working physical features (like a sustained hot corona) that the mainstream will *never* and has never accomplished with their so called "models". Is 'magnetic reconnection' a "model" for anything to do with solar atmospheric physics? In what sense? Mathematically? Alfven called their math "pseudoscience". Certainly not "physically". The best they'd ever accomplish in a lab is a short duration high energy plasma events with changing magnetic fields.

One way to do research without spending money is to read and study published reports and papers of those
who have spent money and have done research. There are lots of papers reporting on what is happening on and around the sun,
the solar system, near space, and very deep space. The technical achievements of the astronomy community are quite stunning.
It is their narrow, gravity does everything, constraint that impedes progress.

True, but the last full series of experiments on a cathode solar model were done more than a century ago, using relatively primitive technologies by today's standards. If we want to have a "better" understanding than Birkeland, we'll need to at least replicate his full body of work, not just half of it, as SAFIRE has done. It takes serious money to do those types of experiments, millions of dollars.

If we can focus on details and not general platitudes like " it is electric", as paladin 17 has suggested, we would be in a much stronger position .
If it turns out that the James Webb telescope exposes fully formed galaxies at the so called beginning of Big Bang time, for instance, the standard model people will just figure out some new adjustment of their scheme ,and will not look to plasma cosmology or the EU,
IF WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE SUN WORKS.

Jack

But actually......,

Birkeland did 'know' how the sun works. He generated a *sustained* full sphere corona in a lab. He generated a sustained planetary aurora. He surmised that the sun was internally powered based on a "transmuation of elements". He actually had a *far* better understanding of solar physics, particularly solar atmospheric physics, than solar physicists today. For all their "expertise", astronomers today cannot and will never build a series of laboratory experiments that produce a sustained full sphere corona or a sustained aurora based on magnetic reconnection. Their beliefs about magnetism in fact are *childish* and oversimplified. "Magnetic switchbacks"? WTF are those?

You don't have to look very hard to find external satellite support for Birkeland's *cathode* solar model. "Space" is in fact "positively" charged by a field of mostly positively charged particles that we call "cosmic rays". The sun does indeed emit cathode rays (NASA calls them electron beams). It does indeed emit both types of charged particle too just as Birkeland predicted. There are *tons* of supporting data to make a full redo of
Birkeland's work a priority in astronomy, but the mainstream blinders are so tight, they're unwilling to even consider it. That's the kind of "dogmatic stubbornness" that has stifled scientific development, and has kept astronomy in the literal "dark" ages. I've only met a handful of astronomers that even have a clue about Birkeland's work, and most of those people only had a *very rudimentary* understanding of it. I doubt they'd even really sat down and actually read his work for themselves in fact. If the mainstream won't be bothered to study the work that has been done, or bothered to reproduce any of it, what hope is there for advancement?

It's not like these sorts of experiments are "cheap". They aren't not cheap. SAFIRE cost well over a million, and it's only even done about half of the work Birkeland did. Birkeland happened to be independently wealthy. Most people don't have that luxury, and these sorts of projects deserve public funding.

[jacmac]

Well, Michael Mozina and BeAChooser, I agree with much of what you both say about the "mainstream".
However, I try to turn the focus inward to the condition of our own ideas.

For example:
Birkeland and Safire used an electric voltage, applied in a circuit, to achieve their results.
How does the sun get charged up to "discharge" to the heliopause when it is completely surrounded
by the heliopause ? As DR Scott says "what is the actual circuit ?"
I have asked this before; many times.
There have been no answers or discussions.
I have asked about the solar "discharge" details; there are no answers, comments, or discussions.
Is the photosphere the node, the discharge, or both ?
How does the Chromosphere fit into the anode (or cathode) discharge ?
What's up with the three part sun ? A discharge looks more like an electric spark, or arc, or lightening...etc.

I have just reread some of this thread from 2019:
Re: Biological Action Potentials & Stellar Circuits. Posted by Solar.
I think looking at biology might be another way into figuring out the sun.
After all, that's where plasma got it's name.

Jack

[paladin17]

No, the purpose of the forum is to exchange ideas, to debate different beliefs within the EU/PC community (anode vs. cathode sun), and to discuss topics of space with people who are interested in *real physical* explanations for things we observe in space.

I haven't seen such discussions in a while around here. They were the absolute minority in recent couple of years.

I doubt they'd even really sat down and actually read his work for themselves in fact. If the mainstream won't be bothered to study the work that has been done, or bothered to reproduce any of it, what hope is there for advancement?

In my eyes the question is different: if you (not you specifically, but in general) have this "true" knowledge of how things operate, then why even appeal to the mainstream all the time? Leave them alone and work on your model yourself. You're miles ahead of them anyways, right? By virtue of having the "true" knoweldge, that is.
Otherwise it looks like a pathetic cry for help. "We have the right paradigm, but we are unable to do anything with it, please help! Send us money and specialists that can actually do the research for us". Simultaneously accompanied by "Ha-ha, you are such ridiculous idiots, you know nothing!" in a weird bipolar type of attitude. This is anything but productive.

[Michael Mozina]

No, the purpose of the forum is to exchange ideas, to debate different beliefs within the EU/PC community (anode vs. cathode sun), and to discuss topics of space with people who are interested in *real physical* explanations for things we observe in space.

I haven't seen such discussions in a while around here. They were the absolute minority in recent couple of years.

I doubt they'd even really sat down and actually read his work for themselves in fact. If the mainstream won't be bothered to study the work that has been done, or bothered to reproduce any of it, what hope is there for advancement?

In my eyes the question is different: if you (not you specifically, but in general) have this "true" knowledge of how things operate, then why even appeal to the mainstream all the time? Leave them alone and work on your model yourself. You're miles ahead of them anyways, right? By virtue of having the "true" knoweldge, that is.
Otherwise it looks like a pathetic cry for help. "We have the right paradigm, but we are unable to do anything with it, please help! Send us money and specialists that can actually do the research for us". Simultaneously accompanied by "Ha-ha, you are such ridiculous idiots, you know nothing!" in a weird bipolar type of attitude. This is anything but productive.

It probably would be good to restart another discussion on the cathode/anode debate based on SAFIRE findings and what we've learned from satellites in space over the last several years, but we have had such debates in the past.

It's one thing to have "knowledge", but such knowledge is necessarily going to be limited to the work that's been done in the lab in the past, the information we've gathered from a satellites in space and whatever *new* experiments we might engage in. The first two issues aren't the problem, but advancing our understanding requires a bit of the third aspect, specifically it requires*new* experiments with new equipment. Those experiments are actually rather expensive, particularly if they're going to be "done right".

I think it's worth trying to appeal to the mainstream, if only to appeal to A) their natural scientific curiosity, and B) address the need for additional experimentation. Without additional experimentation, our understanding and knowledge isn't likely to improve all that much as demonstrated by the events of the last century. When astronomers fixate on a supposed "solution", like "magnetic reconnection", they tend to fixate only upon the mathematical models, but they never make any effort to compare their models to what actually shows up in real lab experiments. That's a serious problem. MRx is *never* going to produce a *sustained* process of plasma acceleration because it's incapable of doing so. At best you'll get a *temporary* acceleration of plasma while magnetic fields are changing over time. It won't produce a sustained aurora, or a corona, which is why that's never been accomplished with MRx, a full century after it was accomplished with circuit theory and electric fields.

Unfortunately as it relates to physics of what's actually going on in space, the mainstream really does know virtually nothing about it. It's not MRx that causes solar wind, or coronas, or auroras, it's electric fields, but they simply will not go to the lab to demonstrate that fact for themselves. Likewise, it's not "dark matter" they're "missing", it's just ordinary matter they are missing. Literally 95 percent of their model is metaphysical garbage and the other 5 percent of their understand of plasma is "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory.

[Michael Mozina]

Well, Michael Mozina and BeAChooser, I agree with much of what you both say about the "mainstream".
However, I try to turn the focus inward to the condition of our own ideas.

For example:
Birkeland and Safire used an electric voltage, applied in a circuit, to achieve their results.
How does the sun get charged up to "discharge" to the heliopause when it is completely surrounded
by the heliopause ? As DR Scott says "what is the actual circuit ?"

I'd say that will will need a lot more information about what goes on at the heliosphere to adequately answer that question. Keep in mind that Birkeland treated the sun as a 'generator' of electrical current and a generator of solar wind kinetic energy. In his model, the sun's cathode surface is interacting with a surrounding "space" that is net positively charged. This assumption about the net charge of space is easily verified by the fact that cosmic rays are *overwhelmingly* (99 percent) positively charged particles, mostly ions, but also in the form of positrons that roughly balance out the incoming electrons. Those particles are traveling inbound into our solar system at nearly the speed of light. That "current flow" is important in terms of understanding the overall dynamics of what's happening. Most of the net electrical exchange however is happening at the heliosphere, not at the surface of the sun. Previous solar wind missions tend to verify that he sun receives a small amount of incoming electrons near the poles which is where it's "completing the circuit".

I have asked this before; many times.
There have been no answers or discussions.
I have asked about the solar "discharge" details; there are no answers, comments, or discussions.
Is the photosphere the node, the discharge, or both ?
How does the Chromosphere fit into the anode (or cathode) discharge ?

I would say the "surface" of the sun (located under the surface of the photosphere) acts as the cathode (compared to space), and as Birkeland surmised, cathode rays/electron beams shoot off of that surface and out into space, and attract/drag/transfer kinetic energy from collisions into protons

What's up with the three part sun ? A discharge looks more like an electric spark, or arc, or lightening...etc.

I would suggest it's actually *at least* a four part sun, and the separation, density and temperature gradients in the solar atmosphere are related to their primary elemental compositions. The photosphere for instance is mostly made of neon IMO, whereas the lighter, hotter chromosphere is mostly composed of helium, and the corona is mostly hydrogen. There are ions of all kinds flowing through all the layers, but the layer are separated by elements IMO.

I have just reread some of this thread from 2019:
Re: Biological Action Potentials & Stellar Circuits. Posted by Solar.
I think looking at biology might be another way into figuring out the sun.
After all, that's where plasma got it's name.

Jack

Someone else will have to defend that model, but it's clear from the SAFIRE experiments that an anode model produces a series of double layers around the sphere. Why? I'm not sure. I would suggest however that if we add various elements to the mix, it may also produce elements separation as well as multiple double layers.

[jacmac]

Thanks Michael for your response.
A quick google search indicates the photosphere is claimed to be about 75 % hydrogen and about 24 % helium
and the chromosphere is "mostly" hydrogen.
It appears to be technically difficult to make these measurements.
Why you believe the photosphere is mostly neon and the chromosphere mostly helium
is interesting, but probably not on this thread.

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks Michael for your response.
A quick google search indicates the photosphere is claimed to be about 75 % hydrogen and about 24 % helium
and the chromosphere is "mostly" hydrogen.
It appears to be technically difficult to make these measurements.
Why you believe the photosphere is mostly neon and the chromosphere mostly helium
is interesting, but probably not on this thread.

The neon photosphere concept comes from SERTS data that showed all the amount of light from various ions. Neon ions were incredibly well represented in that data set, along with Silicon, Nickel and of course Iron. The amount of light from neon is staggering.

[Brigit]

WRT BeAChooser's original question, perhaps people do feel that they are in a more censorious atmosphere than ever before, especially on scientific questions. And we may as well say it, it is not just censorious -- there is increased ability of many parties to actually censor, not just censure.

We may even be getting fewer and fewer search results on any alternative views in science. Various national algorithms are programmed to "redirect" the search results and suggestions for people, based on their interests. The purpose is to redirect them to more mainstream views on scientific topics, such as the ones you mentioned. The suggestions and redirected results are tailored to direct a person towards more accepted models.

I will provide an example of such a search algorithm in just a bit because I do not have it at my fingertips.

[perpetual motion]

I don't know whom on this forum is from the good o usa, but if you are you should know
that the CIA and military knows very well what EU is saying. The mainstream news
knows nothing but to tell the people what THEY want you to hear. The CIA runs most
of everything in the states. The people of the world would utterly throw up if the
CIA had to blab out all of their history, and most of it is really, really bad.
I've been on this site for many years watching, reading, some small posts here
and there, but nothing has really changed. Pretty much same o same o.I'am seeing
that most of the posts are still referring to what mainstream is saying. Thats should
be a no no. Most of if not all of this knowledge will be surpassed or even thrown out
of the records if at all printed in any science journals.
Just my two cents and the grapevine news.

[Brigit]

Indeed. "Stuck in the middle with you!" (;

In science, are there times when people from all walks of life engage in looking very critically at what the experts and specialists are saying?

Do these people necessarily agree on "an alternative theory" to replace the mainstream theory?

Unless you've been reading too much Thomas Kuhn, the answers to those questions are obvious. It is the prerogative of any scientist or lay person who is affected by bad scientific methods, measurements and conclusions, to engage in rational criticism of what the experts are saying, at any time.

Again, rational criticism in science and from the general public is vital at all points in the scientific process. For example, some wonderful work by professionals, citizen scientists, and lay people has been done in examining critically the claims of the climate crew. And what happens when people are engaged is really quite astonishing to observe. Despite having had every possible institutiional, economic, and political advantage, and despite the billions in funding and global influence, the climate practitioners were considerably slowed down in their pursuit of policy. The claims and policy demands simply did not stand up to scrutiny.

What is also clear is that the lay people and citizen scientists never have been unified in their views of what makes the weather work on the planet earth. There were plenty of people who said that we are simply in an intergalatial period and should enjoy it while it lasts, and there were a lot of what I called the Solar People who believed that the earth's climate is connected to the sun and solar activity, but there was absolutely no consensus regarding what drives the weather. There was a lot of diversity.

There are other examples, but this does show that sometimes we don't know the answers to all of nature's mysteries, but we may at any time engage in careful, diligent rational criticism of what the practitioners of science are claiming.

At the time that Kuhn came out with his cheap 60s paper back, this was one of Karl Popper's criticisms of that tragic fad. I would like to go on and on but as this is OT, maybe another time.

[Sceptical lefty]

... for the time being, the 'old guard' is intent on riding it out until they can retire. They don't give a damn about truth or actual physics, just protecting their asses.

Pretty much sums it up.