Debunking Dave

[Higgsy]

The 600MV is the potential that Birkeland predicted at the Sun, and since your model purports to explain the heating of the corona and the solar wind including the strahl, then the effect of the potential has to operate right out of the Sun because that is where the solar wind incluing the strahl arises. If the 600MV is doing anything at the Sun, then its effect can be detected and measured inside the solar system, in fact right at the Sun.

Well, assuming all of that is true, how exactly did you propose to measure the voltage "right" at the cathode surface located *underneath* of the surface of the photosphere? How exactly would you suggest that we stick a gigantic series of Langmuir probes into the solar atmosphere? It sounds like a difficult task to me, one not likely to be accomplished in my physical lifetime.

As I said, and as you keep ignoring, wherever the cathode surface (ridiculous idea, but still) is in your model, it would produce an electric field and potential drop away from the Sun which would be measurable by a) direct measurement (for example the FIELDS instrument of the PSP) and b) by the effect it has on the solar wind. Indeed, you are trying to explain certain aspects of the solar wind by the 600MV, but the actual solar wind does not have an electron mean energy in the hundreds of MeV.

Because if the Sun were to be charged to a potential of 600MV, which was Birkeland's esitmate, then we know from Coulomb's law what the potential will be at any distance from the Sun,

You'd have to begin with a *series* of assumptions, like the *actual* location of the cathode surface.

Do you actually read my whole post before you start replying, because it sure as hell seems like you just reply sentence by sentence and bring up stuff which is covered further down. This idea of an "electrode surface" below the photosphere surface is your idea. You tell me where you think it is and why, and we can go from there. But I already pointed out that even in the extreme case that it's halfway into the Sun, it still doesn't help you as we're still talking about hundreds of MeV for the energy of electrons in the solar wind.

and 600MV would result in outgoing electrons with energy orders of magnitude higher than we see,

No, we do actually see them.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 094537.htm

Did you actually read that? You see the bit where it says these are cosmic ray electrons? They are reflected by the shock front of CMEs outside the heliosphere, but they don't originate in the the solar wind. They are cosmic ray electrons. There are no solar wind electrons within the heliosphere with anything more than hundreds of eV, several orders of magnitude too low to be explained by a 600MV Sun. And if your electrode surface is at or in the Sun, the potential would drop to about 1MV by the 1AU, so the electrons ought to be fully accelerated by the 599MV potential difference at the Earthis orbit.

and positive ions would be unable to escape from the Sun at all.

Alright, I'll bite. Why not? You do realize that electrical discharges are taking place all over the entire surface, and ionizing elements inside coronal loops, right? There are complex double layers to consider which were seen even in the SAFIRE experiments.

Nevertheless how do you propose that solar ions could ever leave a 600MV negative Sun? The electric field at the top of the corona would exert an attractive force on the ion tens of thousands of times greater than the gravitational force on the ion. The escape velocity at the Sun owing to gravity is 6.17 x 10^5 m/s which is equivalent to a mean thermal velocity for protons of 20 x 10^6K (so that only the high energy tail of the Maxwellian distribution can escape). Multiply the attractive force of gravity by an attractive electrical force tens of thousands of times greater arising from your 600MV and no ions escape. It is obvious that the Sun cannot have a 600MV charge.

Even *if* that were all true, it can still have *a* charge and it *must* have a negative charge with respect to 'space' to generate a continuous strahl electron flow away from the surface toward the heliosphere and space.

No. As the solar wind is net neutral (and must be net neutral otherwise there will be charge accumulation), it cannot be explained by a static voltage. Of course, the location, intensity and energy of the strahl electrons need to be explained by some mechanism that is not just escape of thermal particles, and it seems that they might be explained by dynamic and local interactions of the Sun's magnetic field with particle flows, or by Alfven waves or by local current-free double layers which need to supply some 100eV of energy per electron.

If you're not happy with the voltages Birkeland came up with, try some of your own figures.

After accounting for some positive charge (about 80 coulombs) to neutralise the gravitational segregation of electron and ion escape energies, which results in a field of a few microvolts per meter, my figure is zero. It has to be because equal numbers of positive and negative charges leave the Sun.

You're also making a lot of assumptions about how and where and how those outbound high energy electrons reach their highest speeds. They may reach their highest speeds well *beyond* the heliosphere for all I know.

What we do know is that strahl lose energy as they go further from the Sun according to PSP and Voyager data, with the density and energy falling to low levels at the heliopause. Those high energy electrons outside the heliosphere are cosmic ray electrons.

Note that I am only using your concept of an "electrode surface" for the purposes of this argument. You have suggested no mechanism by which an "electrode surface" could exist at the Sun, or what would produce it,

Why then do you whine and complain if there remain some questions that cannot yet be fully explained in a cathode circuit theory model?

This isn't a question of "fully explaining". This is a question of giving a rationale to the most basic and fundamental claim in your hypothesis - the claim that the Sun has an "electrode surface" somewhere (where?) below the surface of the photosphere.

I have suggested some options as to how current is maintained, and how charge separation can occur. Even if it's complete source is a bit of a mystery, it's *effects* in terms of particle physical movement patterns in and around the solar atmosphere are undeniable.

They are absolutely deniable. The neutral solar wind and the energies of particles in the solar wind are quite unlike what would be produced by a charged Sun. And you haven't given any viable mechanisms at all for creating and maintaining that negative charge.

Since you don't actually say how far below the photosphere this "electrode surface" resides, let's, for the sake of argument, say that Birkeland's 600MV is at a surface halfway between the centre and the photosphere. Well as a consequence of that and Coulomb's law the potential at the top of the corona would be 200MV and the potentials and potential drops I calculate above are just reduced by a factor of three. You'd still have to explain the absence of electrons in the 100s of MeV energy in the solar wind.

Where *exactly* are you measuring the energy state of various electrons leaving the sun? They can continue to accelerate over time and over distance in a cathode model as they accelerate towards the heliosphere and through the heliosphere.

Sadly for you, the data shows the opposite effect. The solar wind slows and becomes less intense the further from the Sun we look.

I'm not even going to ask you for a reference for that because it is still four orders of magnitude less than we would see if the "electrode surface" were half a solar radius below the top of the photosphere.

How about this reference then?

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3 ... 881/abc337

The oscillations are typically preceded by bursts of high-energy ~5–100 MeV electrons.

As that paper notes (have you read it?) the high energy electrons are cosmic ray electrons, not solar wind electrons all of which have pretty much had their energy dissipated by the time they reach the heliopause.

You also seem to have a very primitive concept of charge separation in plasma where multiple double layers can (and do in the lab) form around the electrode surface.

Of course double layers can form, but then they need to be part of the hypothesis, and you need to demonstrate the mechanism by which they form and are maintained, you need to determine where they reside and their physical characteristics to see whether they can, indeed, explain the accelerated electrons. Current-free double layers created by a steep temperature gradient are indeed, one potential explanation for the strahl acceleration, but the location and field in the CFDL is a bit problematic.

And by the way, if your understanding of the shell theorem were correct, Birkeland's cathode solar simulation wouldn't work at all.

Why not? The electric field from the little spherical cathode (i. e, the Sun in his model) still exists (the field goes with the inverse square law), and is perfectly capable of accelerating the electrons. It's just the charged sphere at the anode which has no influence as the electric field is zero inside a charged shell. And anyway Birkeland put his spherical electrode in a rectangular box not a sphere.

The fact you'd even try to apply such an overly simplistic concept to a complex, often multiple double layer environment shows an astounding lack of understanding the complexities of current carrying plasma physical environments.

No. I know all about the complexities, but when your claims fall at the most basic hurdle you needn't bother about the complexities. Your claim is that the Sun has a static negative charge which explains the strahl and the coronal temperature and who knows what else. But it can't have this charge that you claim for very obvious reasons. The concept of the negative Sun is untenable.

[Michael Mozina]

The 600MV is the potential that Birkeland predicted at the Sun, and since your model purports to explain the heating of the corona and the solar wind including the strahl, then the effect of the potential has to operate right out of the Sun because that is where the solar wind incluing the strahl arises. If the 600MV is doing anything at the Sun, then its effect can be detected and measured inside the solar system, in fact right at the Sun.

Well, assuming all of that is true, how exactly did you propose to measure the voltage "right" at the cathode surface located *underneath* of the surface of the photosphere? How exactly would you suggest that we stick a gigantic series of Langmuir probes into the solar atmosphere? It sounds like a difficult task to me, one not likely to be accomplished in my physical lifetime.

As I said, and as you keep ignoring, wherever the cathode surface (ridiculous idea, but still) is in your model, .......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

It's not 'my' model, and it's not a "ridiculous idea", it's a *physically working model*, which produces a full sphere corona, solar strahl and planetary aurora. That's *far* (way) more than you've managed to accomplish in a real laboratory experiment with magnetic reconnection in over 60 years! Your "magnetic reconnection" concept isn't just ridiculous pseudoscience, it's *entirely inept* in the lab at producing *sustained* acceleration, and it's pure pseudoscience on a stick according to the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory. The sad part is that even after 60 years of dreaming up new and improved 2D and 3D models, you *still* (to this very day) cannot get *any* of it work in lab to produce *sustained* particle acceleration. MRx is the *ridiculous* idea with zero laboratory support for *sustained* particle acceleration.

it would produce an electric field and potential drop away from the Sun which would be measurable by a) direct measurement

I'm sure that it does produce such field potentials, but to measure them would require a series of Langmuir probes to be inserted both *under* and above the surface of the photopshere and inserted into and outside of the heliosphere.

(for example the FIELDS instrument of the PSP)

Um, exactly how many "double layers" do you figure exist between the cathode surface and a spacecraft that doesn't even get within 8 solar radii of the sun?

and b) by the effect it has on the solar wind.

We absolutely *do* see it's effect on the solar wind, in fact it's *producing* the exact solar strahl feature we would expect from a cathode model, and it also emits positively charged ions, exactly as we would expect from cathode sun! You are apparently *blind* to actual working physics as well as *measured* features of the solar atmosphere.

Indeed, you are trying to explain certain aspects of the solar wind by the 600MV, but the actual solar wind does not have an electron mean energy in the hundreds of MeV.

Where the heck did you get a "mean* from in the first place? Inside or *outside* of the heliopshere? We *absolutely do* see electrons in the 100 MeV range in Voyager data so your claim that we do no see such electron energy states coming from the sun is simply *false*.

You'd have to begin with a *series* of assumptions, like the *actual* location of the cathode surface.

Do you actually read my whole post before you start replying, because it sure as hell seems like you just reply sentence by sentence and bring up stuff which is covered further down. This idea of an "electrode surface" below the photosphere surface is your idea. You tell me where you think it is and why, and we can go from there. But I already pointed out that even in the extreme case that it's halfway into the Sun, it still doesn't help you as we're still talking about hundreds of MeV for the energy of electrons in the solar wind.

That's utter nonsense. You didn't even *try* to factor in any type of double layer process which is *observed* in these kinds of experiments. SAFIRE produced *numerous* double layers around the electrode. There have to be *at least* three of them to consider, including the photosphere, the chromosphere, and the heliopshere. Furthermore a lot of the kinetic energy of the electrons is *sure* to end up being transferred into the heating all the plasma in the solar atmosphere. You didn't consider *any* of that!

Did you actually read that? You see the bit where it says these are cosmic ray electrons? They are reflected by the shock front of CMEs outside the heliosphere, but they don't originate in the the solar wind.

So you claim.

We can empirically (in the lab) debate the *cause* of their acceleration process, but of course we won't be able to replicate any of your claims in the lab. They're certainly coming *from* the direction of the sun and they certainly have energy states which are consistent with what we would expect to observe from Birkeland's cathode model.

They are cosmic ray electrons.

So what if you call them "cosmic rays"? It's a term that simply implies a high velocity. You don't "know" where they came from, you only the direction which they are currently traveling, specifically *away* from the sun just as I would *expect* and *predict*.

There are no solar wind electrons within the heliosphere with anything more than hundreds of eV,

False. You absolutely don't know that. We only know that we *measure* outbound electrons with more than 100 MeV, just outside of the heliosphere, in the right energy ranges that I would expect. We might see voltage drops, and particle acceleration in *every* double layer, including the heliosphere.

several orders of magnitude too low to be explained by a 600MV Sun.

Even *if* that were all true, so what? The *very worst* that you could scientifically claim is that "in your opinion" the voltage figure that Birkeland came up with might be too high. So what? *Any* voltage is sufficient for it to be a "cathode" solar model, and you'd need *some* voltage difference to explain whatever strahl figure you pick. Even a 600 Volt solar feature would *still* make it a cathode model. Who cares what number you come up with? You're still going to end up with a cathode model that explains that average strahl speed, and you still can't produce it with "magnetic reconnection" or (evidently magical) "current free double layers" in a real lab experiment.

And if your electrode surface is at or in the Sun, the potential would drop to about 1MV by the 1AU, so the electrons ought to be fully accelerated by the 599MV potential difference at the Earthis orbit.

What bugs me the most is the fact that you keep *oversimplifying* how *plasma* actually behaves in real lab experiments, you *ignore* it's double layer features entirely, you *ignore* the fact that "magnetic reconnection" can't reproduce *any* sustained particle acceleration process and to add insult to injury, you actually believe that some sort of oversimplified "napkin calculation" can be used to falsify a *working* simulation of the process in question. It's all irrational behavior on your part.

Nevertheless how do you propose that solar ions could ever leave a 600MV negative Sun?

Double layers and electrical discharges.

The electric field at the top of the corona would exert an attractive force on the ion tens of thousands of times greater than the gravitational force on the ion.

How do you know that? Did you count the various double layers between the cathode surface and the top of the corona? Where exactly *is* the "top of the corona"? Is that were the solar atmosphere meets up with the heliosphere, or did you just pick some random location and call that location the "top" of the corona?

The escape velocity at the Sun owing to gravity is 6.17 x 10^5 m/s which is equivalent to a mean thermal velocity for protons of 20 x 10^6K

That hardly seems like much of a problem since solar flares routinely generate plasma in the 20 million degree range. Even without *any* double layers that doesn't appear to be much of a limit.

(so that only the high energy tail of the Maxwellian distribution can escape).

That oversimplified concept actually won't work when you're talking about all the kinetic energy streaming off the sun and slamming into various particles in the solar atmosphere. It won't work the moment you actually embrace plasma physics either and introduce some actual double layers into the process.

Multiply the attractive force of gravity by an attractive electrical force tens of thousands of times greater arising from your 600MV and no ions escape. It is obvious that the Sun cannot have a 600MV charge.

It really *does not* matter to me if Birkeland's voltage estimate is exactly right, "mostly" right, or "a bit off". It's still only possible to explain that consistent strahl feature with a consistent voltage difference. You sure as hell can't produce a full sphere solar strahl with "magnetic" pseudoscience.

No. As the solar wind is net neutral .....

Bull. You do *not* know that! You *assume* that to be the case. We observe *incoming* cosmic rays of a positive charge, and *outbound* high energy electrons that far and away exceed the average speed of the solar wind, so it's not necessarily 'net neutral" in all instances and all locations, and even if all the particles were exactly equal, it could *still* be a "current carrying" plasma.

(and must be net neutral otherwise there will be charge accumulation), it cannot be explained by a static voltage.

It can (and has) been explained with a complete circuit theory however, and it doesn't have to be explained with a single "static" voltage as you seem to imagine.

Of course, the location, intensity and energy of the strahl electrons need to be explained by some mechanism that is not just escape of thermal particles,

Well, it already *has* been explained *and simulated* in the lab with circuit theory. That is more than you will *ever* (in my entire lifetime) do with "magnetic reconnection". I've been waiting now for over 5 decades since you dreamed up that mathematical pseudoscience called "magnetic reconnection" to see you simulate such a process based on MRx theory. When should I expect to see you do that, and demonstrate your claim in a real laboratory experiment? Never! You can't simulate a *sustained* particle acceleration process *at all* with MRx or you would have done it by now. You are a whole frigging *century* behind circuit theory *and counting* when it comes to producing *working* simulations of your claims in real laboratory plasma.

and it seems that they might be explained by dynamic and local interactions of the Sun's magnetic field with particle flows, or by Alfven waves or by local current-free double layers which need to supply some 100eV of energy per electron.

Pure handwave and your claim doesn't do squat in a real lab experiment. I don't need 100eV of extra energy per electron, I have lots of acceleration energy caused by the charge separation between the sun's cathode and "space".

After accounting for some positive charge (about 80 coulombs) to neutralise the gravitational segregation of electron and ion escape energies, which results in a field of a few microvolts per meter, my figure is zero. It has to be because equal numbers of positive and negative charges leave the Sun.

You keep stating this as "fact" yet you could never even *hope* to demonstrate it scientifically! To actually "know" if they are equal, you'd need to measure every single particle inside the heliosphere everywhere at the same time. This is nothing more than your "mantra" because you cannot and will not accept the *reality* of electric fields in space!

What we do know is that strahl lose energy as they go further from the Sun according to PSP and Voyager data, with the density and energy falling to low levels at the heliopause.

I'm sure they do lose energy as they transfer their original momentum (from the cathode surface) to the atmospheric plasma medium *inside* the heliosphere, but once the beams of electons reach the heliosphere, they certainly accelerate again. It's no surprise to me that they reach 100Mev energy states outside of the heliosphere when they begin to interact more directly with the inbound positively charged cosmic rays.

Those high energy electrons outside the heliosphere are cosmic ray electrons.

I don't care what you "call" them, they are still *outbound* (from the sun) electrons reaching *MeV* energy states, just like I'd expect from Birkeland's model.

This isn't a question of "fully explaining". This is a question of giving a rationale to the most basic and fundamental claim in your hypothesis - the claim that the Sun has an "electrode surface" somewhere (where?) below the surface of the photosphere.

I have given you a "rationale", including the *observed fact* that sun is constantly being bombarded with positive ions traveling at close to the speed of light. That issue *alone* is going to create charge separation between "space" and whatever surface in space we wish to discuss which those particles are slamming into.

They are absolutely deniable.

Only by someone experiencing pure unadulterated denial.

The neutral solar wind and the energies of particles in the solar wind are quite unlike what would be produced by a charged Sun.

That is *absolutely* false. The solar wind *isn't* neutral. The energy state *exceed* 100Mev in terms of electrons leaving the heliosphere, and even the mere presence of positive outbound ions is a *key prediction* of the cathode model. You can't generate *any* of those particle physical movement patterns in the solar atmosphere based on MRx, let alone *sustain* them over time! Sheesh. You're unbelievable. It's no wonder why your industry is a scientific wasteland without any ability to demonstrate any of your key claims in a real lab experiment. You don't even know (or care about) what a *successful* physical laboratory experiment *looks like*, or it's actual role in "science" and the scientific method.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

That's what it looks like. When can I expect to see you simulate a working planetary aurora in a lab experiment based in "magnetic reconnection". I've waited more than five decades, and I have no illusion about the fact that I'll be long dead and gone before you do such a thing.

And you haven't given any viable mechanisms at all for creating and maintaining that negative charge.

Yes I have. I've started with an "electrical generator' that interacts with an inbound particle flow pattern. The mere fact that cosmic rays are *positive* and *consistent* is a "viable mechanism" to explain charge separation in space.

Since you don't actually say how far below the photosphere this "electrode surface" resides, let's, for the sake of argument, say that Birkeland's 600MV is at a surface halfway between the centre and the photosphere. Well as a consequence of that and Coulomb's law the potential at the top of the corona.....

Where are you claiming the "top of the corona" is located? You mean right at the outside edge of the heliosphere?

would be 200MV and the potentials and potential drops I calculate above are just reduced by a factor of three. You'd still have to explain the absence of electrons in the 100s of MeV energy in the solar wind.

We *already measure* electrons at over 100Mev *outside* of the heliosphere *coming from* the sun. There's nothing missing!

Where *exactly* are you measuring the energy state of various electrons leaving the sun? They can continue to accelerate over time and over distance in a cathode model as they accelerate towards the heliosphere and through the heliosphere.

Sadly for you, the data shows the opposite effect. The solar wind slows and becomes less intense the further from the Sun we look.

Actually the stral only "slows" until it reaches the heliosphere and then it accelerates again up to over 100Mev. It's not "less" intense at Voyager distances is *more* intense at Voyager distances.

I'm not even going to ask you for a reference for that because it is still four orders of magnitude less than we would see if the "electrode surface" were half a solar radius below the top of the photosphere.

How about this reference then?

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3 ... 881/abc337

The oscillations are typically preceded by bursts of high-energy ~5–100 MeV electrons.

As that paper notes (have you read it?) the high energy electrons are cosmic ray electrons, not solar wind electrons all of which have pretty much had their energy dissipated by the time they reach the heliopause.[/quote]

No! You are simply *assuming* that mainstream theories about how such electrons might be accelerated are correct. I don't make that assumption because I've yet to see you produce such a thing in a real lab experiment, and again, I'll be long dead and gone before anything of the sort is done in a controlled laboratory experiment. On the other hand, I can see the effects a cathode model for myself.

You also seem to have a very primitive concept of charge separation in plasma where multiple double layers can (and do in the lab) form around the electrode surface.

Of course double layers can form, but then they need to be part of the hypothesis,

The are a part of any cathode hypothesis, but you *refuse* to address them or account for them. Even the heliosphere ultimately ends up being a "double layer" which electrically separates and isolates the sun from "space". You haven't accounted for that fact *anywhere* in any of your overly simplified calculations as far as I can tell.

and you need to demonstrate the mechanism by which they form and are maintained,

I have. It's called "cosmic ray bombardment".

you need to determine where they reside and their physical characteristics to see whether they can, indeed, explain the accelerated electrons.

I have seen with my own eyes via direct experimentation that they *do* "explain the accelerated electrons". I have also seen with my own eyes that "magnetic reconnection" does *not* explain a *consistent acceleration process* in any laboratory experiment, certainly none that don't being and end with circuit energy.

You're talking about trying to figure out a complex double layering system that begins 'sheltering' the cathode surface from "space" out by the heliosphere, *not* right at the actual surface of the sun as you keep insisting!

Current-free double layers

What's a "current free" double layer? I don't suppose you have an *working example* of such a thing from a *working* lab experiment that I can review?

created by a steep temperature gradient are indeed, one potential explanation for the strahl acceleration, but the location and field in the CFDL is a bit problematic.

If you even *had* a real explanation for the sun's "temperature gradients", that might be interesting, but you don't, certainly not one that actually works in a real lab experiment.

And by the way, if your understanding of the shell theorem were correct, Birkeland's cathode solar simulation wouldn't work at all.

Why not?

Go back and reread what you actually wrote about the net effect of the field on a charged particle on the cathode surface. According to you the effect is "zero" and that is simply *wrong*.

[Michael Mozina]

...how exactly did you propose to measure the voltage "right" at the cathode surface located *underneath* of the surface of the photosphere? How exactly would you suggest that we stick a gigantic series of Langmuir probes into the solar atmosphere? It sounds like a difficult task to me, one not likely to be accomplished in my physical lifetime.

Or mine. Or humanity's.

No worries, Michael. Higgly has reliably informed us that when you're declared wrong simple estimates are suitable so: science. The familiar post hoc QED argument for the win.

I think astronomers have forgotten the importance of real laboratory "tests", and the need to *empirically physically demonstrate* any of their mathematical pseudoscience.

We'll start with dark energy since it makes up about 70 percent of their model. They don't even know where dark energy physically comes from, or how it could possibly sustain a constant density throughout expansion. They can't explain why dark energy constantly violates the conservation of energy laws as more and more and more "dark energy" is created throughout the expansion process.

Astronomers falsely claim that they "test" their beliefs in various dark matter experiments, while *consistently ignoring* any and all falsification of their various mathematical models at LHC and everywhere else. They have a horrible case of confirmation bias, and all null results get swept right under the rug. They can't "fail", so it's not a real "test" at all.

They don't have to demonstrate inflation isn't just an imaginary friend of Alan Guth in a real and actual laboratory experiment. They just lean on mythical math to support their claims. In spite of the fact that Penrose mathematically demonstrated that it's 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that a 'flat" universe happens *with* inflation rather than without it, astronomers continue to cite the "flatness" of the universe as 'evidence' to support inflation. Sheesh. They've simply lost touch with physical and even mathematical reality entirely. They certainly don't understand what a "successful" laboratory experiment even looks like anymore.

About the *only* place in their entire dark universe where *any* of their mathematical 3D models and claims could theoretically be useful in terms of laboratory experiments is "magnetic reconnection", which Alfven referred to as "pseudscience". Alfven literally wrote the very first textbook on MHD theory and won a Nobel Prize for his efforts. He called the whole concept of magnetic reconnection pseudoscience. To this day, decades after his death, astronomers continue to *misuse* Alfven's MHD theory to try to give "magnetic reconnection' an air of scientific credibility *in spite* of the fact that they've never demonstrated in the lab that there is even a unique physical process *other than* induction which occurs as a result of changing magnetic field topology inside of a conductor like a plasma, and *in spite* of the fact that they *still* cannot produce a *sustained* particle acceleration process in a real lab experiment, let alone one which isn't ultimately powered by *circuits*.

Higgsy has certainly lost touch with empirical physics. He cannot and has not and never will demonstrate any of his particle acceleration claims inside of any actual physical experiment. He can't. He's working with "pseudoscience" in terms of the math, and even *with* his new and improved 3D mathematical/mythamatical models, they *still* can't produce a sustained particle acceleration process in a a real lab experiment based on *any* of them.

The *only* way you're going to get a consistent, full sphere particle "strahl" from the sun, flowing into the solar atmosphere, is to add an electric field. That's exactly *all* that Birkeland had to do in order to generate strahl, generate positive ion flows from the sun, and generate *sustained* planetary aurora. Nature operates in a very *simple* manner. It's *not* that complicated.

Astronomers would have your believe that their math is all that's important to physics, in spite of the fact that none of it, not even their new 3D models of 'magnetic reconnection' produce *any* amount of *sustained* plasma acceleration in a real laboratory experiment. They certainly can't do it with "dark energy" or "magnetic reconnection".

I've watched astronomers/scientists like Higgsy here talk about the value of their high and mighty math skills for 15 years, but the sad fact of the matter is that all of that math is based on metaphysical BS and "pseudoscience", and therefore *none* of it actually works or shows up in a real scientific lab experiment.

Astronomers today, like their epicycle counterparts a few hundred years ago, somehow convinced themselves that empirical physical models don't matter, and that "science" only relates to, and applies to 'mathematical models'. Michael Faraday however was the one that figured out, *and physically demonstrated* the *physical* relationships between electricity and magnetism *without* any need for math. Astronomers forgot the importance of the Michael Faradays to the advancement of "science", so what astronomers believe in today amounts to dark magic science fiction, and *none* of it has any practical or useful value in a real scientific experiment.

It's almost comical that astronomers expect me believe their pseudo-scientific metaphysical mathematical models correctly describe the movement patterns of an entire plasma universe, in spite of the fact that none of their mathematical models is capable of even producing and sustaining the plasma particle movement patters of a simple planetary aurora in an actual laboratory experiment. Their math has *zero* practical empirical value in terms of even explaining plasma particle movement patterns inside of our solar system, let alone anywhere else.

[JHL]

I think astronomers have forgotten the importance of real laboratory "tests", and the need to *empirically physically demonstrate* any of their mathematical pseudoscience.

We'll start with dark energy since it makes up about 70 percent of their model. They don't even know where dark energy physically comes from, or how it could possibly sustain a constant density throughout expansion. They can't explain why dark energy constantly violates the conservation of energy laws as more and more and more "dark energy" is created throughout the expansion process.

[...]

Astronomers would have your believe that their math is all that's important to physics, in spite of the fact that none of it, not even their new 3D models of 'magnetic reconnection' produce *any* amount of *sustained* plasma acceleration in a real laboratory experiment. They certainly can't do it with "dark energy" or "magnetic reconnection".

[...]

Astronomers today, like their epicycle counterparts a few hundred years ago, somehow convinced themselves that empirical physical models don't matter, and that "science" only relates to, and applies to 'mathematical models'.

[...]

It's almost comical that astronomers expect me believe their pseudo-scientific metaphysical mathematical models correctly describe the movement patterns of an entire plasma universe, in spite of the fact that none of their mathematical models is capable of even producing and sustaining the plasma particle movement patters of a simple planetary aurora in an actual laboratory experiment. Their math has *zero* practical empirical value in terms of even explaining plasma particle movement patterns inside of our solar system, let alone anywhere else.

I took some liberties editing your remarks down to what I felt was an essence of one of our problems, Michael. This not being my field, I can't remark about the particulars of its physics, but experience in another field has taught me that in engineering we have a remarkable propensity 1) to see only what we see, and, 2) to forget to frame the consensus perspective for what it is. We track down a certain path and at some point, we shift domains such that the ostensibly scientific - meaning physical and demonstrable - becomes, as you call it, metaphysical and theoretical.

However we fail to keep this transition firmly in mind. We carry on as if the theoretical is itself the rigorously, physically scientific. If this is true, it will probably not spare a field as wild and unknown as cosmology.

I think it's a plausible explanation for how we've gotten to the point where we're freely willing to speculate about everything from instantaneously appearing and disappearing magic matter, energy and matter with no properties except to balance math, spinning stars with surfaces traveling at appreciable percentages of lightspeed, universes that exist in near-infinite numbers of near copies of one another, Matrix-like universes as literal computer simulations, elementary particles that somehow inform all other particles, quantum mechanics that involve either turtles all the way down forever or only down to the level they simply float above, and so on and so on and so on.

Apparently this universe can't not be metaphysical. To say it's science through our eyes is folly. It is not and we have to trash the meaning of the word in order to apply it here.

If the universe is this mysterious, then any purported physical science within it has the duty and obligation to announce itself as a theory that consciously leaves whole swaths of understanding unknown. To say this is the science is itself a falsehood at this level and scale. It is not a remotely plausible position.

I haven't any idea which if any universal model actually hews to our strange reality. I only commented because it's exceptionally bad form to adopt one particular model, with its established vagaries and shortcomings completely unaddressed and not admitted, while abusing another theory and it's proponents.

We don't know, and that disclaimer must be present in all the sidebars and footnotes and references and cites, even as papers emerge monthly wherein our scientists of these decidedly abstract realities admit throwing their hands up at the standard model. For them to basically disclaim knowledge and for us not to is wrong.

Oort conjecture is now some 90 years old. (Newton's work is obviously older, but Newton wasn't speculating.) When speculating - that the universe created itself and all the rest of the LCDM faith - one must have the good grace to admit it. The rest is hubris. And arguing on the Internet about the infinitely mysterious as if it were a known entity is perhaps the biggest tell of failure in all the sciences.

Clearly the universe we occupy isn't given to answers. I just happen to find the EU refreshingly rooted in plausibility while the LCDM is obviously given to wild speculation where all sorts of ideas and whims lead to goal-seeking solutions that beg credibility in the extreme. We've created a paid class of white coats - a known and renown crisis in the sciences - whose purpose is to not see what they mustn't see in order to pursue their job descriptions.

Goal-seeking obviously has no place in physical science. Speculation must have a place, obviously, because it's how good research begins. Not to differentiate between the two is folly.

[Earl Sinclair]

Maybe astronomers are just lazy? They'll say something like, "We CAN'T do laboratory experiments because the size and distances we're talking about are too vast to create an experiment. Therefore, we HAVE to rely on our computer models. There are no corresponding small-scale experiments we can do to prove or ( more importantly ) disprove our models."

Since it's all gravity, all the time - unless or until you can create a detectable black hole, or 1,000g gravity in the lab, well, you're just going to have to accept what we say.

At least cosmologists are relatively cheap compared to particle physicists - telescopes, even orbiting ones, are less expensive than gigantic super-colliders.


Earl

[Michael Mozina]

Maybe astronomers are just lazy? They'll say something like, "We CAN'T do laboratory experiments because the size and distances we're talking about are too vast to create an experiment. Therefore, we HAVE to rely on our computer models. There are no corresponding small-scale experiments we can do to prove or ( more importantly ) disprove our models."

That's probably true as it relates to all their "dark" metaphysics, but.......

There's nothing at all prohibiting them from *demonstrating* their various claims about "magnetic reconnection" in real lab experiments. The lab experiments they tend to cite all begin and end with *cathodes*, with electric fields and with existing current sheets. None of those lab experiments are capable of *sustaining* anything in terms of particle acceleration *without* the presence of a stable electric field. In other words, it's the *electric field* that "sustains" particle acceleration in various "reconnection" experiments, not some short induced current changes due to magnetic field topology changes in the plasma. "Magnetic reconnection" hasn't even been shown to be physically different from ordinary induction in real lab experiments, and *like* induction, whatever particle acceleration happens as a result of changing field topology is a *short duration* event.

In theory there's no reason they can't duplicate Birkeland's terella experiment with "magnetic reconnection", but alas they've never even seriously tried to recreate those particle flow patterns with "magnetic reconnection" because they know damn well it's going to require sustained electric fields, and it's not going to produce *sustained* particle acceleration from an entire sphere in order to replicate something like "strahl" electron flow.

They're not just lazy, they're actually afraid of the lab. It's never been their friend.

[Earl Sinclair]

Watched too many movies with those electrical arc thingies, "Jacob's Ladder" Tesla coils?

Worried they'll get fried by bazillions of volts of electricity?

Nah, it's a LOT easier to come-up with some really seriously complicated equations in MatLab.


Earl