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'.jacmac wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 2:29 am BeAChooserIt is not a tangent to say the Anode sun model does not work.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?
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.
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.
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.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.
But actually......,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
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.