Nature is replete in having simultaneously a grand diversity and remarkable similarity, and so I think that more than observation of a phenomena with comparison to something similar is required to have a full understanding, which is to say that comparing the electromagnetic activity of the sun to that of a metal sphere may be useful, but far from complete.
Well, I have to agree, but then I doubt that EU theory will ever be "complete" from a mathematical perspective, at least not in my lifetime. Birkeland did however go a long way toward demonstrating that electron flows through plasma could generate most if not all of the same observations we see in satellite images today. In his experiments, he simulated auroras, planetary rings, ring currents, coronal loops and CME type events.
He did?
To what extent did his simulations match the observed SED (spectral energy distribution) of 'coronal loops and CME type events'? From gammas to radio.
Note that this question is inherently quantitative.
Ditto, for planetary rings, including the range of phase angles we now have good observational data for from missions such as Voyager 2, Galileo, and Cassini.
In the context of your post, what do you mean by 'ring currents'?
Quote:
That alone should peak our interest in his work IMO. All the satellite evidence supports an electric universe interpretation IMO.
Would you be so kind as to elaborate on what you mean by "[a]ll"?
Are you referring to only direct observations, by spacecraft-based instruments, of the Sun (including the corona)? Only "images" from such instruments? Does you comment include in situ data on the IPM (inter-planetary medium) gathered by such instruments?
Is there any particular reason you chose to not include evidence gathered by ground-based instruments?
To what extent do (did) you intend your claim to be interpreted to refer to quantitative evidence?
Quote:
These observations, both in the lab, and from space "qualify" EU theory, something that has never been done for standard theory.
Would you please say a bit more about this?
In particular, what do you mean by qualify?
Quote:
Quote:
So I still think your model needs the maths to back it up, because then you would be able to do something really impressive (as was done), like predict a specific neutrino flux, measure the flux and find it deficient, and then subsequently discover that it wasn't the measured quantity that was deficient, but rather it was the detectors and theory/model that were deficient, and hence make a wonderful discovery that the heavier neutrinos change their flavor! There's a good Wikipedia page on it - Neutrino oscillation.
I agree, EU theory (and my model) require additional maths over time to back it up. It does however have some maths associated with it already due to work of Charles Bruce, Hannes Alfven, and Anthony Perett. It has experimental support due to the work of Kristian Birkeland. Sustained (a couple hours) hydrogen fusion reactions have never been duplicated in a lab, and most standard solar models have no substantive laboratory support. [snip]
As you are no doubt well aware, the core concepts of "most standard solar models" include the following:
* hydrostatic equilibrium
* the concepts of radiative and convective transport of energy
* opacity tables
* average density of the Sun being the estimated mass of the Sun divided by its volume.
To what extent do you feel - or claim - that these (or any subset) lacks "substantive laboratory support"?
Quote:
If mainstream astronomers can't explain the physics of the energy release of "magnetic reconnection", how can we be sure it's not just a misperceived idea that actually relates to electrical activity in plasma?
This is a very good question!
Devilogic's first point (in an earlier post, that you replied to) goes a long way to addressing it.
How does 'EU theory' account - at least at an order of magnitude level - for the Sun having been approximately constant in its energy output (~4.10^26 W) over ~5 billion years, in terms of "electrical activity in plasma"?
Note that this question incorporates the usual - internal consistency, and consistency with good, direct, relevant observations.
Quote:
Alfven certainly believed that magnetic reconnection theory was invalid and incaccurate, and he wrote the book on MDH theory. Coincidently he also wrote the book on plasma cosmology theory/EU theory from a mathematical perspective. The book "Cosmic Plasma" pretty much defines the basis of modern plasma cosmology theory. [snip]
Exploring this will take us way, way beyond the scope of this thread, so I will simply note that Alfven's active scientific career ended before he had a chance to see, let alone assess, the cornucopia of modern, high quality astronomical observational results directly pertinent to his "plasma cosmology theory". This is a pity, because it would have been very interesting to see what he would have made of them.
Curiously, none of those who remain enthralled by his ideas have managed (yet) to produce anything quantitative in terms of consistent explanations of (or, if you prefer, accounts of) those billions of observations.
However, to end my comments with a note of sadness: Michael has, elsewhere, pointed to a paper by Alfven in which he (Alfven) reveals an amazingly simple misunderstanding of Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) ... how could the father of MHD have been so blind?
This site proposes that the surface of the sun is rocky calcium ferrite.
Is this site a "quack" site or is there some legitimate belief that the sun has a solid surface. The core of the sun is probably so dense that it has to be solid, I am talking more like a surface like the crust of the Earth.
I should probably read the guy's site more thoroughly, but from what I gathered he doesn't adress any of the following:
1. How does he propose the Sun generates its energy? (3.9e26 W is not a trivial affair - aside from nuclear reactions I really can't see any way)
2. Where does he propose all the iron came from - in other words, how does he propose our Sun was born? (if you say Sun is made of iron you basically say that all models of galaxy and star formation are incorrect - you also invalidate any Big Bang scenario)
3. A follow up question, does he acknowledge the existance of red giants, neutron stars, pulsars, black holes, supernovae, ...? How does he explain those came into existance?
4. And finally, how does he explain the measured neutrino emissions (specifically the ones OP mentioned)?!
Faliure to answer any one of this questions means a BIG hole in his theory (especially with respect to current theories), but I suspect he can't answer not even one. Gas based star formation is really a great unifying notion - if you abandon it I'll be impressed if you can explain anything.
We can easily extend this set of questions, to cover the several centuries of observational results from astronomy.
Some background first.
Estimates of the mass, radius, and energy output across the electromagnetic spectrum - the SED (spectral energy distribution) - of individual stars can be made from standard, lab-based techniques. Based solely on empirical, astronomical observations, we find that most* stars can be classified as 'Main Sequence' (MS) stars. Two (three) other classifications account for almost all* the rest - (super) giants, and white dwarfs. While there are very few 'neutron stars', no matter how you count (and classify) stars observationally, they are a highly distinctive class - their average density is far, far greater than any other class of star, and the range of their masses is quite narrow.
To the extra questions, about Michael's non-mainstream ideas on stars.
7. What proportion of Main Sequence stars "come[] from a supernova remnant"?
8. What proportion of (super) giants "come[] from a supernova remnant"?
9. What proportion of white dwarfs "come[] from a supernova remnant"?
10. For what proportion of MS stars in (physical) binaries does "[t]he bulk of [their] energy come[] from the electrical current that flows through [them]"?
11. Ditto for (super) giants in binaries.
12. Ditto for white dwarfs in binaries.
13. Ditto for neutron stars in binaries.
Perhaps, after Michael has answered these questions, we could ask some more, concerning the physical mechanism(s), in his non-mainstream idea, that drive the observed intrinsic variability in stars.
*Quantifying 'most' and 'almost all' can be easily done; however care is needed in defining the universe (the denominator) ... what do we choose to consider as 'all stars'?
[Does he acknowledge the existence of] neutron stars,
I personally allow for the possibility of neutron stars. Not every EU advocate shares that viewpoint however.
Quote:
pulsars,
Sure, see my answer on Neutron Stars.
[snip]
Well, keep in mind that every theory has "holes" in it. [...] Lambda-CMD theorists can't produce a single gram of "dark matter" or a controlled test that demonstrate that it exists. [snip]
And in a later post (extract; I've added emphasis):
Quote:
Quote:
I thought your remarks about maths were a little disparaging
Let me address this point specifically. I love math, but only when it is applied to real physics and controlled empirical evidence. I don't appreciate mathematical mythologies that rely upon unqualified concepts like elves, inflation, dark energy or dark matter. There is a significant difference between the mathematically modeling done by Hannes Alfven, where each mathematical model was studied in relationship to the actual behaviors of real plasma in controlled laboratory conditions, and mathematical mythologies that are based on something unqualified like inflation. Whereas Alfven made every effort to make sure his models matched physical properties of plasma in a lab, Guth made no attempt to demonstrate that inflation really existed, or that it solved any missing "monopole problems". No one has ever demonstrated that inflation exists, or has any effect on matter. Therefore stuffing inflation into a mathematical model is pointless IMO, just as you might find it pointless for me to create mathematical models related to magical forces. The standard models have never been "qualified", just as magnetic reconnection theory has never been qualified or defined in terms of real physics. That's the difference in a nutshell. I have no problem with math, in fact I believe that math is necessary to fully understand (quantify) what we observe. Math alone however cannot ever "qualify" a theory. "Qualifying" a theory takes real scientific tests in controlled scientific conditions. Without qualification, I have no faith that the quantification process is useful or valid.
Let's explore this a bit, shall we?
May one ask in which lab Alfven (or anyone else) performed "real scientific tests in controlled scientific conditions" on "a single gram" of neutron star material? That is, a gram which has a density approximately the same as that of a neutron star.
Note that this question has nothing to do with dark (non-baryonic) matter, dark energy, or inflation; it's entirely about neutron stars.
Note too that we could extend this question by asking about 'MECOs', about inspiral GW signatures, and so on.
To what extent did his simulations match the observed SED (spectral energy distribution) of 'coronal loops and CME type events'? From gammas to radio.
To the extent that Birkeland could do so 100 years ago, he did. To the extent that Alfven and Peratt could do so they did. Did you ever read any of the links I provided you with? How come Birkeland was able to create aurora, planetary rings, and high energy, "coronal loop" discharges, and high energy "jets" from his experiments, and why is it that we see these same shapes, energy flows and patterns playing out in space? Are you curious at all, or is this just another electric witch hunt thing?
Quote:
Note that this question is inherently quantitative.
No Nereid, reality is inherently physical. It is tangible, and it can be tested in a lab. One thing that you refuse to acknowledge, both in our conversations under my ManInTheMirror handle and my own name, is that science involves *qualification*, not simply quantification. It is irrelevant to me how many elves you think "quantitatively" dance on the head of a pin, if you don't qualify your belief in elves, it's irrelevant how "pretty" your quantification of elves looks on paper.
Birkeland "qualified" EU theory 100 years ago in controlled experiments, using very basic tools of science. Unlike you, Birkeland was scientifically curious about the link between electron flows and the aurora, and their link to other cosmological observations, from planetary rings, to coronal loop activity. You seem trapped in the idea that all knowledge comes from math. You can experience and enjoy love without quantifying it with integrals and calculus. Love is a part of "reality', irrespective of whether or not you or I can quantify it on paper.
Physical science requires empirical physical evidence. Birkeland provided empirical physical evidence that the 'structures' of the universe involve the flow of electrons through objects in space. His aurora experiments took 70 years to verify via in-situ satellite observations from space. It may take another 200 years before people like you are curious enough to notice the electrical links between planetary rings and ring currents and the flow of electromagnetic energy through the solar system, but Birkeland recognized this link, and built a working model over 100 years ago. Aren't you personally even the least bit interested in that link? How about we commit to taking some of those billions of dollars we spend on science every year and we reconstruct his experiments using the latest and greatest cameras and scientific equipment available and we find out?
Or did you just expect me personally to do it all for you before you'll lift a finger to even read the materials I've suggested (like cosmic plasma)?
Quote:
Ditto, for planetary rings, including the range of phase angles we now have good observational data for from missions such as Voyager 2, Galileo, and Cassini.
Gee, if only you didn't expect me to do all the million dollar ground work for you, maybe we might find out.
Quote:
Would you be so kind as to elaborate on what you mean by "[a]ll"?
I mean every high resolution solar satellite program (and most of the other ones as well) all support this 'interpretation' of the electrified nature of "physical reality".
Quote:
Are you referring to only direct observations, by spacecraft-based instruments, of the Sun (including the corona)?
Sure. Let's start with the Rhessi program. If we point the Rhessi instrument at the Earth, we notice gamma ray signatures from the atmosphere of Earth. Why?
When we point that same instrument at the atmosphere of the sun, we see point signature gamma ray signatures in it's atmosphere too. Why?
Quote:
Only "images" from such instruments? Does you comment include in situ data on the IPM (inter-planetary medium) gathered by such instruments?
Sure. The Wind instruments can tell us the moving nature of charged particles in out solar system. Satellites and ground stations record the acceleration of solar wind as it leaves the surface of the photosphere. Why?
You do realize that Birkeland could explain all the why parts of my questions, correct?
Quote:
Is there any particular reason you chose to not include evidence gathered by ground-based instruments?
No, my bad. They provide tons of data to support an EU theory as well.
Quote:
To what extent do (did) you intend your claim to be interpreted to refer to quantitative evidence?
As I explained to you earlier, I'm a "qualitative" individual, and EU theory is a well 'qualified' (as in controlled experimentation) theory. I lacks the funding to be as well "quantified" as you would personally like.
Quote:
Would you please say a bit more about this?
Sure. During our conversations under my handle "ManInTheMirror", I demonstrated for you that almost nothing about Lambda-CDM theory has been "qualified" based on controlled experimentation. You can't provide a shred of evidence in a controlled test to demonstrate that inflation wasn't a figment of Guth's imagination. You can't demonstrate that "dark energy" has any effect on "physical reality" in a controlled lab test. You can't provide us with a single gram of non baryonic "dark matter", but somehow you need 80 percent "non-baryonic dark matter" to make all these fudge factors work out right.
Birkeland and Alfven built theory from "qualified" scientific testing in *controlled* laboratory experiments. Alfven took Birkeland's work on step further and explained the physical science of the movement of charged particles in EM fields in mathematical terms so that all of this might be "quantified" to your heart's content. I can't even get you to read his book for me so we can have an intelligent discussion on this topic.
Quote:
In particular, what do you mean by qualify?
I mean show me a controlled test that demonstrates that dark energy isn't a figment of your metaphysical imagination, just as Birkeland demonstrated that electricity could produce planetary ring effects, auroras and current carrying "magnetic ropes" in the solar atmosphere.
Quote:
As you are no doubt well aware, the core concepts of "most standard solar models" include the following:
* hydrostatic equilibrium
How is the sun in anyway in "hydrostatic equilibrium' in your opinion?
Quote:
* the concepts of radiative and convective transport of energy
How does that transport of energy get past that "stratification subsurface" that Kosovichev found at .995R?
Quote:
* opacity tables
For what? Do you presume that the sun is not mass separated by chance? If so, why?
Quote:
* average density of the Sun being the estimated mass of the Sun divided by its volume.
If we presume no acceleration in the Z-axis, then all that tells us is the *average* density. It tells us little or nothing about it composition. We could have taken Birkeland's sphere from his terella, taken it's average density, and found it had the consistency of water. That does not mean his sphere was made of water. The same thing would apply to his solar model.
Quote:
To what extent do you feel - or claim - that these (or any subset) lacks "substantive laboratory support"?
Hmmm. I would say that to a great degree *all* theories, including EU theory lacks *substantive laboratory support*, either from a quantitative perspective as is the case with EU theory, and from a qualification perspective as in the case of Lambda-CDM theory.
Quote:
This is a very good question!
It's a great question, but of course I can't give you a good answer because neither you, nor any of your mainstream friends has ever qualified this idea in a controlled laboratory test, nor explained how "magnetic reconnection" releases energy at the atomic level that is in any way distinguishable from ordinary electrical interactions in plasma.
Nothing has been qualified from your side of the aisle, and the moment you step into the lab to build this equipment, you have to ask yourself what the equipment should look like. There's Birkeland's experiments staring us in the face. What shall we do?
Quote:
Devilogic's first point (in an earlier post, that you replied to) goes a long way to addressing it.
How does 'EU theory' account - at least at an order of magnitude level - for the Sun having been approximately constant in its energy output (~4.10^26 W) over ~5 billion years, in terms of "electrical activity in plasma"?
The fact our sun continues to shine all day every day from an EU perspective, means that electrons flow through the universe, all day, every day, for eternity as far as I know.
Quote:
Note that this question incorporates the usual - internal consistency, and consistency with good, direct, relevant observations.
Well, that observation of a "magnetic rope" Bennett pinch current flow from the sun to the Earth is one relevant observation. From it, we can determine the amount of energy that flows in such events. There is an energy flow, all day, every day, of solar wind particles that flow through out magnetosphere and generate currents in the magnetosphere via induction and the fact they are moving charged particles to begin with.
Quote:
Exploring this will take us way, way beyond the scope of this thread,
No it's not. It cuts to the heart of the energy source Nereid. Why are there million degree coronal loops in the *corona*, if the photosphere is only 6K degrees? How many OOM differences might we expect to see in the coronal if there is not electrical discharge process involved in heating up the corona?
Quote:
so I will simply note that Alfven's active scientific career ended before he had a chance to see, let alone assess, the cornucopia of modern, high quality astronomical observational results directly pertinent to his "plasma cosmology theory". This is a pity, because it would have been very interesting to see what he would have made of them.
It's a pity IMO that people like you don't pick up his book and pick up his work and quantify it to the professional level you desire. It would be highly enlightening, both to you personally, and to an entire planet. I'm trying to do my part, while earning a living writing software, enjoying my family time and enjoying life in general. I already know that Birkeland and Alfven are right about the electrified nature of physical reality, with our without all the math that you desire. I do think that EU theory requires more quantification, but that requires effort from qualified people like you, financial recognition, and publishing recognition. When I hand you papers, you won't even read them and whine about the publishing source.
Quote:
Curiously, none of those who remain enthralled by his ideas have managed (yet) to produce anything quantitative in terms of consistent explanations of (or, if you prefer, accounts of) those billions of observations.
Baloney. I just handed you a NASA link that quantified that energy transfer for you. Did you not read it?
Quote:
However, to end my comments with a note of sadness: Michael has, elsewhere, pointed to a paper by Alfven in which he (Alfven) reveals an amazingly simple misunderstanding of Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) ... how could the father of MHD have been so blind?
You know Nereid, when you call the guy with Nobel prize, "blind" without ever reading his book, without reading those Nasa links I provided, and without even considering what I've talked about with you for the last couple of years, I can't help but think that it's you that insist on remaining blind.
Could it be that you are wrong and Birkeland was right about the electrical nature of physical reality? Could it be right that currents flow inside the plasmas of spacetime, knowing full well that plasma are nearly perfect conductors of electrons?
Could it be that suns are not powered internally, but instead the are powered by the currents that flow through spacetime? All these questions remain unanswered, and you have never answered my question about whether or not you have read the book Cosmic Plasma, by the father of MHD theory, the guy with the Nobel prize, and oh, ya, the quantitative "father' of plasma physics?
May one ask in which lab Alfven (or anyone else) performed "real scientific tests in controlled scientific conditions" on "a single gram" of neutron star material? That is, a gram which has a density approximately the same as that of a neutron star.
Not to my knowledge, no. Suppose I state for the record that it's possible that neutron plasmas may not exist, will you open your mind to the possibility that the universe experiences the flow of electrons through it?
Maybe Birkeland's theories deserve some financial support and equal time in the classroom?
One more point about a the approach to science that seems important.
Plasma cosmology/EU theory is built from the ground up in a "standard" (controlled physical testing) manner. It is an extension of laboratory tests with electricity and mathematically begins with plasma physics. It is built from the small scale, and extends itself into the large scale as far as it can go with empirical evidence.
Birkeland created empirical evidence that electron flows through objects in space could explain aurora activity, planetary rings, coronal loop activity, "jetting" activity, and he even described electrified tornado like effects in plasma, all done by one guy, over 100 years ago. Alfven (and many other like Bruce) saw the value of his work in electrical theory and applied to to the sun and to other things in space. Alfven pretty much wrote the plasma physics book. If you want a better quantitative understanding of the relationships between what can be seen in space and from the ground using the best technology possible, and what can be created in a lab using the best technology possible, you'll have to spend some money recreating Birkeland's experiments using the best technology possible. It would be worth every penny IMO.
EU theory extends outward as our in-situ technologies improve and we can record the energy transfers between the sun and the Earth using newer technologies. It extends outward as we watch the acceleration of solar wind particles leave the photosphere. It extends outward as we observe "twisted magnetic ropes" between objects in space.
Lambda-CMD theory begins with a premise, specifically that all matter and energy originated from 0,0,0,0 (or darn close to it) and it attempts to build a "big picture" concept that then extends downward into the solar system and into the lab. It is a completely different approach to science.
[As you are no doubt well aware, the core concepts of "most standard solar models" include the following:
...]
* average density of the Sun being the estimated mass of the Sun divided by its volume.
If we presume no acceleration in the Z-axis, then all that tells us is the *average* density. It tells us little or nothing about it composition. We could have taken Birkeland's sphere from his terella, taken it's average density, and found it had the consistency of water. That does not mean his sphere was made of water. The same thing would apply to his solar model.
[snip]
I know you introduced comments along the lines of 'no acceleration in the Z-axis' elsewhere, but I've forgotten what you intend by it; would you mind elaborating please?
I'm particularly interested in light of this, from an earlier post of yours:
Quote:
There might be missing mass, but there is no evidence that any missing mass is contained in non-baryonic forms of "dark matter" rather than being found in electrons and iron suns.
You seem to be saying, here, that at least a significant minority of stars have masses of the order of 10 to 100 (or more) times that of the average MS (Main Sequence) star, and/or that astronomers have mis-estimated at least these stars' masses.
As you are no doubt well aware, the core concepts of "most standard solar models" include the following:
* hydrostatic equilibrium
How is the sun in anyway in "hydrostatic equilibrium' in your opinion?
Quote:
* the concepts of radiative and convective transport of energy
How does that transport of energy get past that "stratification subsurface" that Kosovichev found at .995R?
Quote:
* opacity tables
For what? Do you presume that the sun is not mass separated by chance? If so, why?
Quote:
* average density of the Sun being the estimated mass of the Sun divided by its volume.
If we presume no acceleration in the Z-axis, then all that tells us is the *average* density. It tells us little or nothing about it composition. We could have taken Birkeland's sphere from his terella, taken it's average density, and found it had the consistency of water. That does not mean his sphere was made of water. The same thing would apply to his solar model.
Quote:
To what extent do you feel - or claim - that these (or any subset) lacks "substantive laboratory support"?
Hmmm. I would say that to a great degree *all* theories, including EU theory lacks *substantive laboratory support*, either from a quantitative perspective as is the case with EU theory, and from a qualification perspective as in the case of Lambda-CDM theory.
[snip]
Michael, somewhere, in some forum or other, I think I recall someone responding to you rather tartly, to the effect that you apparently have a poor understanding of even classical physics.
I'm sorry to say that this part of your post, which I am quoting in full, seems to lend weight to the remark.
Back in September, 2007, in this thread, peanut asked whether [your website] was a "quack" site or not. Based on what you wrote (above), I can see why so many have concluded that it is. After all, if you don't (apparently) even know what terms like 'hydrostatic equilibrium' and 'convective and radiative transport of energy' mean, it may well be reasonable to conclude that you also don't understand the physics of electromagnetism either, much less plasma physics.
Devilogic's first point (in an earlier post, that you replied to) goes a long way to addressing it.
How does 'EU theory' account - at least at an order of magnitude level - for the Sun having been approximately constant in its energy output (~4.10^26 W) over ~5 billion years, in terms of "electrical activity in plasma"?
The fact our sun continues to shine all day every day from an EU perspective, means that electrons flow through the universe, all day, every day, for eternity as far as I know.
Quote:
Note that this question incorporates the usual - internal consistency, and consistency with good, direct, relevant observations.
Well, that observation of a "magnetic rope" Bennett pinch current flow from the sun to the Earth is one relevant observation. From it, we can determine the amount of energy that flows in such events. There is an energy flow, all day, every day, of solar wind particles that flow through out magnetosphere and generate currents in the magnetosphere via induction and the fact they are moving charged particles to begin with.
[snip]
How many electrons does it take, in a day, to produce the Sun's observed, integrated, energy output, in the UV to IR part of the spectrum (say, 100 nm to 1 micron)? From an EU perspective of course.
What is the average "energy flow, all day, every day, of solar wind particles that flow through out magnetosphere"? In watts if you please.
RE: [snip] RE: Nature is
)
He did?
To what extent did his simulations match the observed SED (spectral energy distribution) of 'coronal loops and CME type events'? From gammas to radio.
Note that this question is inherently quantitative.
Ditto, for planetary rings, including the range of phase angles we now have good observational data for from missions such as Voyager 2, Galileo, and Cassini.
In the context of your post, what do you mean by 'ring currents'?
Would you be so kind as to elaborate on what you mean by "[a]ll"?
Are you referring to only direct observations, by spacecraft-based instruments, of the Sun (including the corona)? Only "images" from such instruments? Does you comment include in situ data on the IPM (inter-planetary medium) gathered by such instruments?
Is there any particular reason you chose to not include evidence gathered by ground-based instruments?
To what extent do (did) you intend your claim to be interpreted to refer to quantitative evidence?
Would you please say a bit more about this?
In particular, what do you mean by qualify?
As you are no doubt well aware, the core concepts of "most standard solar models" include the following:
* hydrostatic equilibrium
* the concepts of radiative and convective transport of energy
* opacity tables
* average density of the Sun being the estimated mass of the Sun divided by its volume.
To what extent do you feel - or claim - that these (or any subset) lacks "substantive laboratory support"?
This is a very good question!
Devilogic's first point (in an earlier post, that you replied to) goes a long way to addressing it.
How does 'EU theory' account - at least at an order of magnitude level - for the Sun having been approximately constant in its energy output (~4.10^26 W) over ~5 billion years, in terms of "electrical activity in plasma"?
Note that this question incorporates the usual - internal consistency, and consistency with good, direct, relevant observations.
Exploring this will take us way, way beyond the scope of this thread, so I will simply note that Alfven's active scientific career ended before he had a chance to see, let alone assess, the cornucopia of modern, high quality astronomical observational results directly pertinent to his "plasma cosmology theory". This is a pity, because it would have been very interesting to see what he would have made of them.
Curiously, none of those who remain enthralled by his ideas have managed (yet) to produce anything quantitative in terms of consistent explanations of (or, if you prefer, accounts of) those billions of observations.
However, to end my comments with a note of sadness: Michael has, elsewhere, pointed to a paper by Alfven in which he (Alfven) reveals an amazingly simple misunderstanding of Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) ... how could the father of MHD have been so blind?
RE: RE: This site
)
We can easily extend this set of questions, to cover the several centuries of observational results from astronomy.
Some background first.
Estimates of the mass, radius, and energy output across the electromagnetic spectrum - the SED (spectral energy distribution) - of individual stars can be made from standard, lab-based techniques. Based solely on empirical, astronomical observations, we find that most* stars can be classified as 'Main Sequence' (MS) stars. Two (three) other classifications account for almost all* the rest - (super) giants, and white dwarfs. While there are very few 'neutron stars', no matter how you count (and classify) stars observationally, they are a highly distinctive class - their average density is far, far greater than any other class of star, and the range of their masses is quite narrow.
To the extra questions, about Michael's non-mainstream ideas on stars.
7. What proportion of Main Sequence stars "come[] from a supernova remnant"?
8. What proportion of (super) giants "come[] from a supernova remnant"?
9. What proportion of white dwarfs "come[] from a supernova remnant"?
10. For what proportion of MS stars in (physical) binaries does "[t]he bulk of [their] energy come[] from the electrical current that flows through [them]"?
11. Ditto for (super) giants in binaries.
12. Ditto for white dwarfs in binaries.
13. Ditto for neutron stars in binaries.
Perhaps, after Michael has answered these questions, we could ask some more, concerning the physical mechanism(s), in his non-mainstream idea, that drive the observed intrinsic variability in stars.
*Quantifying 'most' and 'almost all' can be easily done; however care is needed in defining the universe (the denominator) ... what do we choose to consider as 'all stars'?
RE: [snip] RE: [Does he
)
And in a later post (extract; I've added emphasis):
Let's explore this a bit, shall we?
May one ask in which lab Alfven (or anyone else) performed "real scientific tests in controlled scientific conditions" on "a single gram" of neutron star material? That is, a gram which has a density approximately the same as that of a neutron star.
Note that this question has nothing to do with dark (non-baryonic) matter, dark energy, or inflation; it's entirely about neutron stars.
Note too that we could extend this question by asking about 'MECOs', about inspiral GW signatures, and so on.
RE: To what extent did his
)
To the extent that Birkeland could do so 100 years ago, he did. To the extent that Alfven and Peratt could do so they did. Did you ever read any of the links I provided you with? How come Birkeland was able to create aurora, planetary rings, and high energy, "coronal loop" discharges, and high energy "jets" from his experiments, and why is it that we see these same shapes, energy flows and patterns playing out in space? Are you curious at all, or is this just another electric witch hunt thing?
No Nereid, reality is inherently physical. It is tangible, and it can be tested in a lab. One thing that you refuse to acknowledge, both in our conversations under my ManInTheMirror handle and my own name, is that science involves *qualification*, not simply quantification. It is irrelevant to me how many elves you think "quantitatively" dance on the head of a pin, if you don't qualify your belief in elves, it's irrelevant how "pretty" your quantification of elves looks on paper.
Birkeland "qualified" EU theory 100 years ago in controlled experiments, using very basic tools of science. Unlike you, Birkeland was scientifically curious about the link between electron flows and the aurora, and their link to other cosmological observations, from planetary rings, to coronal loop activity. You seem trapped in the idea that all knowledge comes from math. You can experience and enjoy love without quantifying it with integrals and calculus. Love is a part of "reality', irrespective of whether or not you or I can quantify it on paper.
Physical science requires empirical physical evidence. Birkeland provided empirical physical evidence that the 'structures' of the universe involve the flow of electrons through objects in space. His aurora experiments took 70 years to verify via in-situ satellite observations from space. It may take another 200 years before people like you are curious enough to notice the electrical links between planetary rings and ring currents and the flow of electromagnetic energy through the solar system, but Birkeland recognized this link, and built a working model over 100 years ago. Aren't you personally even the least bit interested in that link? How about we commit to taking some of those billions of dollars we spend on science every year and we reconstruct his experiments using the latest and greatest cameras and scientific equipment available and we find out?
Or did you just expect me personally to do it all for you before you'll lift a finger to even read the materials I've suggested (like cosmic plasma)?
Gee, if only you didn't expect me to do all the million dollar ground work for you, maybe we might find out.
I mean every high resolution solar satellite program (and most of the other ones as well) all support this 'interpretation' of the electrified nature of "physical reality".
Sure. Let's start with the Rhessi program. If we point the Rhessi instrument at the Earth, we notice gamma ray signatures from the atmosphere of Earth. Why?
When we point that same instrument at the atmosphere of the sun, we see point signature gamma ray signatures in it's atmosphere too. Why?
Sure. The Wind instruments can tell us the moving nature of charged particles in out solar system. Satellites and ground stations record the acceleration of solar wind as it leaves the surface of the photosphere. Why?
You do realize that Birkeland could explain all the why parts of my questions, correct?
No, my bad. They provide tons of data to support an EU theory as well.
As I explained to you earlier, I'm a "qualitative" individual, and EU theory is a well 'qualified' (as in controlled experimentation) theory. I lacks the funding to be as well "quantified" as you would personally like.
Sure. During our conversations under my handle "ManInTheMirror", I demonstrated for you that almost nothing about Lambda-CDM theory has been "qualified" based on controlled experimentation. You can't provide a shred of evidence in a controlled test to demonstrate that inflation wasn't a figment of Guth's imagination. You can't demonstrate that "dark energy" has any effect on "physical reality" in a controlled lab test. You can't provide us with a single gram of non baryonic "dark matter", but somehow you need 80 percent "non-baryonic dark matter" to make all these fudge factors work out right.
Birkeland and Alfven built theory from "qualified" scientific testing in *controlled* laboratory experiments. Alfven took Birkeland's work on step further and explained the physical science of the movement of charged particles in EM fields in mathematical terms so that all of this might be "quantified" to your heart's content. I can't even get you to read his book for me so we can have an intelligent discussion on this topic.
I mean show me a controlled test that demonstrates that dark energy isn't a figment of your metaphysical imagination, just as Birkeland demonstrated that electricity could produce planetary ring effects, auroras and current carrying "magnetic ropes" in the solar atmosphere.
How is the sun in anyway in "hydrostatic equilibrium' in your opinion?
How does that transport of energy get past that "stratification subsurface" that Kosovichev found at .995R?
For what? Do you presume that the sun is not mass separated by chance? If so, why?
If we presume no acceleration in the Z-axis, then all that tells us is the *average* density. It tells us little or nothing about it composition. We could have taken Birkeland's sphere from his terella, taken it's average density, and found it had the consistency of water. That does not mean his sphere was made of water. The same thing would apply to his solar model.
Hmmm. I would say that to a great degree *all* theories, including EU theory lacks *substantive laboratory support*, either from a quantitative perspective as is the case with EU theory, and from a qualification perspective as in the case of Lambda-CDM theory.
It's a great question, but of course I can't give you a good answer because neither you, nor any of your mainstream friends has ever qualified this idea in a controlled laboratory test, nor explained how "magnetic reconnection" releases energy at the atomic level that is in any way distinguishable from ordinary electrical interactions in plasma.
Nothing has been qualified from your side of the aisle, and the moment you step into the lab to build this equipment, you have to ask yourself what the equipment should look like. There's Birkeland's experiments staring us in the face. What shall we do?
The fact our sun continues to shine all day every day from an EU perspective, means that electrons flow through the universe, all day, every day, for eternity as far as I know.
Well, that observation of a "magnetic rope" Bennett pinch current flow from the sun to the Earth is one relevant observation. From it, we can determine the amount of energy that flows in such events. There is an energy flow, all day, every day, of solar wind particles that flow through out magnetosphere and generate currents in the magnetosphere via induction and the fact they are moving charged particles to begin with.
No it's not. It cuts to the heart of the energy source Nereid. Why are there million degree coronal loops in the *corona*, if the photosphere is only 6K degrees? How many OOM differences might we expect to see in the coronal if there is not electrical discharge process involved in heating up the corona?
It's a pity IMO that people like you don't pick up his book and pick up his work and quantify it to the professional level you desire. It would be highly enlightening, both to you personally, and to an entire planet. I'm trying to do my part, while earning a living writing software, enjoying my family time and enjoying life in general. I already know that Birkeland and Alfven are right about the electrified nature of physical reality, with our without all the math that you desire. I do think that EU theory requires more quantification, but that requires effort from qualified people like you, financial recognition, and publishing recognition. When I hand you papers, you won't even read them and whine about the publishing source.
Baloney. I just handed you a NASA link that quantified that energy transfer for you. Did you not read it?
You know Nereid, when you call the guy with Nobel prize, "blind" without ever reading his book, without reading those Nasa links I provided, and without even considering what I've talked about with you for the last couple of years, I can't help but think that it's you that insist on remaining blind.
Could it be that you are wrong and Birkeland was right about the electrical nature of physical reality? Could it be right that currents flow inside the plasmas of spacetime, knowing full well that plasma are nearly perfect conductors of electrons?
Could it be that suns are not powered internally, but instead the are powered by the currents that flow through spacetime? All these questions remain unanswered, and you have never answered my question about whether or not you have read the book Cosmic Plasma, by the father of MHD theory, the guy with the Nobel prize, and oh, ya, the quantitative "father' of plasma physics?
It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland
RE: Let's explore this a
)
Not to my knowledge, no. Suppose I state for the record that it's possible that neutron plasmas may not exist, will you open your mind to the possibility that the universe experiences the flow of electrons through it?
Maybe Birkeland's theories deserve some financial support and equal time in the classroom?
It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland
One more point about a the
)
One more point about a the approach to science that seems important.
Plasma cosmology/EU theory is built from the ground up in a "standard" (controlled physical testing) manner. It is an extension of laboratory tests with electricity and mathematically begins with plasma physics. It is built from the small scale, and extends itself into the large scale as far as it can go with empirical evidence.
Birkeland created empirical evidence that electron flows through objects in space could explain aurora activity, planetary rings, coronal loop activity, "jetting" activity, and he even described electrified tornado like effects in plasma, all done by one guy, over 100 years ago. Alfven (and many other like Bruce) saw the value of his work in electrical theory and applied to to the sun and to other things in space. Alfven pretty much wrote the plasma physics book. If you want a better quantitative understanding of the relationships between what can be seen in space and from the ground using the best technology possible, and what can be created in a lab using the best technology possible, you'll have to spend some money recreating Birkeland's experiments using the best technology possible. It would be worth every penny IMO.
EU theory extends outward as our in-situ technologies improve and we can record the energy transfers between the sun and the Earth using newer technologies. It extends outward as we watch the acceleration of solar wind particles leave the photosphere. It extends outward as we observe "twisted magnetic ropes" between objects in space.
Lambda-CMD theory begins with a premise, specifically that all matter and energy originated from 0,0,0,0 (or darn close to it) and it attempts to build a "big picture" concept that then extends downward into the solar system and into the lab. It is a completely different approach to science.
It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/
)
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/BirkelandCosmology.pdf
It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland
RE: [snip] RE: [As you
)
I know you introduced comments along the lines of 'no acceleration in the Z-axis' elsewhere, but I've forgotten what you intend by it; would you mind elaborating please?
I'm particularly interested in light of this, from an earlier post of yours:
You seem to be saying, here, that at least a significant minority of stars have masses of the order of 10 to 100 (or more) times that of the average MS (Main Sequence) star, and/or that astronomers have mis-estimated at least these stars' masses.
Would you mind elaborating please?
RE: [snip] RE: As you
)
Michael, somewhere, in some forum or other, I think I recall someone responding to you rather tartly, to the effect that you apparently have a poor understanding of even classical physics.
I'm sorry to say that this part of your post, which I am quoting in full, seems to lend weight to the remark.
Back in September, 2007, in this thread, peanut asked whether [your website] was a "quack" site or not. Based on what you wrote (above), I can see why so many have concluded that it is. After all, if you don't (apparently) even know what terms like 'hydrostatic equilibrium' and 'convective and radiative transport of energy' mean, it may well be reasonable to conclude that you also don't understand the physics of electromagnetism either, much less plasma physics.
RE: [snip] RE: Devilogi
)
How many electrons does it take, in a day, to produce the Sun's observed, integrated, energy output, in the UV to IR part of the spectrum (say, 100 nm to 1 micron)? From an EU perspective of course.
What is the average "energy flow, all day, every day, of solar wind particles that flow through out magnetosphere"? In watts if you please.