Err ... Michael, I be curious as to what precisely is your point here. This article merely discusses radiative transfer mechanisms in the outer layers of the Sun. They are talking of how to interpret observed data with a view to accounting for transverse electric field polarizations of some spectral lines. Their disclosed calculations use standard mainstream electromagnetism as applied to a complex scenario. Your emboldened quote refers, in the paper's body, to their modelling that inward electron trajectories fit better than outward proton ones. By extension they are curious as to whether said spectral qualities can be used as an accurate indicator of patterns of charge movement, as a future observational tool. There is nothing ground breaking here, simply whether some characteristics of hydrogen line excitations can be better explained by collisions with protons vs collisions with electrons, in the presence of considerable randomizing effects on those chosen polarisations from other mechanisms. While we ought perhaps applaud them for attempting to model what is clearly a difficult calculational problem I can't see anything in their approach that warrants a round vs flat earth comparison. Since the basis and machinery of their modelling is quite bland EM theory, is there an aspect that you would identify as EU-ish ( whatever that would mean )?
Also is there a *quantitative* prediction for the scenario from EU theory - that we could enjoin in a comparison of fitness of alternate theories/models? In the absence of such a quantified theoretical result, as Nereid indicated, we are not in the realm of scientific discourse in the modern sense described earlier. That wouldn't be a shocking problem for EU, but simply a signal that it needs to spruce up, mature or whatever, in order to do so.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Err ... Michael, I be curious as to what precisely is your point here.
Well, my original point is that this technique may provide us with a logical way to determine the direction of the current flow. The polarization techniques could tell us whether electrons are causing these effects or protons are causing emissions. That kind of got lost on my post however now that I read what I wrote. I really need to do more proof reading and be more specific in my statements. I'm sorry for suggesting this was *from* the THEMIS data, I meant to suggest that this paper allows us to *interpret* the current flow direction from the THEMIS data. I got busy and didn't actually proofread what I wrote. Sorry about any confusion on my part.
Quote:
This article merely discusses radiative transfer mechanisms in the outer layers of the Sun. They are talking of how to interpret observed data with a view to accounting for transverse electric field polarizations of some spectral lines. Their disclosed calculations use standard mainstream electromagnetism as applied to a complex scenario. Your emboldened quote refers, in the paper's body, to their modelling that inward electron trajectories fit better than outward proton ones. By extension they are curious as to whether said spectral qualities can be used as an accurate indicator of patterns of charge movement, as a future observational tool. There is nothing ground breaking here, simply whether some characteristics of hydrogen line excitations can be better explained by collisions with protons vs collisions with electrons, in the presence of considerable randomizing effects on those chosen polarisations from other mechanisms. While we ought perhaps applaud them for attempting to model what is clearly a difficult calculational problem I can't see anything in their approach that warrants a round vs flat earth comparison. Since the basis and machinery of their modelling is quite bland EM theory, is there an aspect that you would identify as EU-ish ( whatever that would mean )?
First of all, let me acknowledge that my terse and flippant response was poorly worded, inaccurate, and misleading. My bad.
I do applaud them on two counts, both for the technique itself (which seems very logical) and for the mathematical model they present us with.
According to almost all theories I'm reading about "magnetic reconnection", the basic concept seems to relate to energy streaming down from the corona and slamming into the chromosphere and photosphere. In other words there is energy come down into the sun from higher areas of the atmosphere. This "method" they outline will allow us to determine the directly on the current flows in that magnetic rope. The idea here was to set the stage for determining the direction of the electron flows inside the rope. In theory we should also be able to use a "right hand rule" approach as well, and we should be able to verify the current flow patterns inside the THEMIS rope with the method outlined by the authors.
Quote:
Also is there a *quantitative* prediction for the scenario from EU theory - that we could enjoin in a comparison of fitness of alternate theories/models?
Well, I suppose we could take the THEMIS press release and 'postdict' something after the fact, but that seems like cheating at this point. :) Besides, I don't really know what the voltages might be, so determining the amperage is going to be a pain in the neck. :) I hear you on this point however. I'll have to think about it.
Quote:
In the absence of such a quantified theoretical result, as Nereid indicated, we are not in the realm of scientific discourse in the modern sense described earlier. That wouldn't be a shocking problem for EU, but simply a signal that it needs to spruce up, mature or whatever, in order to do so.
Cheers, Mike.
Well Mike, I wholeheartedly agree that EU theory needs a lot of work on the quantification side of life. It's an extremely well 'qualified' theory IMO, but it is still very poorly quantified, even to an EU enthusiast like me. I do believe however that by putting THEMIS data together with magnetic field measurements from Hinode, we should be able to reconstruct the flows patterns between the sun and the Earth and trace them all the way down to the corona, chromosphere and photosphere. This seems like a very logical way to begin to "quantify" EU ideas, and I look forward to reading the Themis papers to see what techniques they are using to measure the energy exchanges.
IMO these are very exciting times for EU theory. A lot of new technologies are coming online now, and the kinds of techniques that we might use to determine the current flow patterns in the solar atmosphere are becoming much better defined. I do think you'll see EU theory become better quantified over the next few years. It seems to me that the biggest "unknown" in EU theory is what the voltage difference is between the photosphere and the heliosphere, and how much current flows through the sun. Now if we could just run a long wire from the photosphere to the heliosphere..... :)
[embarrassment]Well, yes, but I didn't mean to attribute this particular paper *TO* the THEMIS team. I should have said "related to the THEMIS data", not "from" the THEMIS data. Sorry about that.[/embarrassment] :)
Quote:
It seems to have nothing to do with the THEMIS mission, or data; J. Stepan (the author) is not on the THEMIS team; the paper makes no reference to THEMIS at all; and the topic is solar flares, which THEMIS observes only in the most indirect fashion.
I agree that my statement was both confusing and misleading. My bad.
Quote:
What has this got to do with either THEMIS or 'EU theory'?
As I explained to Mike, I was simply trying to offer us a way to determine the current flow direction inside of the magnetic rope.
Quote:
The 'electric return currents' referred to have been a part of the standard model of solar flares for what, 2-3 decades now?
Well, those electric return currents were not seen inside a magnetic rope that was seen to flow between the sun and the Earth. If we use the technique from this paper we should be able to determine which direction the electrons are traveling. Between high resolution Hinode images and the THEMIS data, we should be able to track that current flow through the solar atmosphere and through the magnetic rope that connects the sun to the Earth and visa versa.
Quote:
AFAIK, they have nothing to do with the ISM, or even the IPM (except, perhaps, very indirectly). In terms of energy sources of the Sun, they'd most assuredly count as 'internal', per the definitions earlier in this thread.
Quote:
Well, that was before we found current carrying ropes flowing between planets and the sun. Which direction is that current flowing? Is Birkeland correct that electrons flow from the sun to the Earth in these ropes, or do the electrons flow into the sun from the Earth? These kinds of mathematical techniques would allow us to determine the direction of the current flow into and out of the solar atmosphere.
Quote:
Well, I must say it's a bit difficult to 'embrace', in a scientific sense, something that's not a theory (in a scientific sense), that is not published in any relevant peer-reviewed journal, and so on.
Birkeland published his work. Alfven published his work. Peratt published his work. Bruce published his work too. You keep making statements that are easily demonstrated to be false. While the peer review process is useful, reality doesn't care what humans publish. It does what it does, irrespective of what we publish.
Every single aspect of EU theory was developed in a 'classical' manner. It was developed from information gained in controlled scientific testing, in controlled scientific experiments. Experimentation is a key element of many branches of science, including EU theory.
There is a legitimate "qualification" vs. "quantification" issue here. Standard theory is well quantified, but many aspects of standard theory (like magnetic reconnection theory) have never been "qualified" in laboratory tests. The reverse is true of EU theory. It is extremely well "qualified" in every scientific sense, but it lacks quantification. Which is "better" from a scientific perspective?
IMO the answer to that question is found in the Chapman vs. Birkeland debate from the 30's(?)- early 1970's. All throughout that timeline, Chapman's ideas were considered "superior" because they were better quantified. Reality didn't care one bit how well "quantified" Chapman's theories were. In the end, Birkeland's "classic" use of standard scientific methods won the debate, and history has a tendency to repeat itself.
So it will be with EU theory vs. standard theories of today IMO. Over time, Birkeland's ideas will triumph because every key aspect of EU theory has been tested in a real lab, with real plasma in real controlled scientific tests. As they say, one test is worth a thousand expert opinions, and one test is also worth a thousand mathematical models.
FYI, I find it equally difficult to "embrace" a quantified theory that lacks qualification in any standard scientific sense. Therein lies the rub for me personally. I can't just ignore the weaknesses of standard theory now that my eyes have been opened to the work of Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, Peratt and many others. Their ideas may still not have the same mathematical elegance of standard theory, but their ideas work in the real world in real tests, with real plasma. I've never seen anyone move plasma in a controlled test using dark energy, or inflation, so I can't help be remain a skeptic when it comes to DE and inflation (and non baryonic forms of "dark matter").
Quote:
Thanks for your concern over my scientific well-being, but I'm happy to continue to not embrace something which does not exist.
Birkeland's ideas and Alfven's mathematical theories and ideas exist and have been published Nereid. Your denial of their existence won't make them go away.
More importantly, Chapman's mathematical models, elegant as they were, just could not make reality change it's nature at the end of the day. At the end of the day, it will be shown that this is an "electromagnetic" universe, filled with current flows of all kinds. We can see the magnetic fields around these current flows form between the Sun and the Earth. We can observe them in distance clouds of plasma, and we can see the effect of these electrical currents on the solar atmosphere as it heats the coronal to millions of degrees, and accelerates the solar wind particles.
The third assumption of the model is that thermonuclear reactions are the only source of energy production inside the star (3).
Quote:
The final assumption of the standard solar model is that the sun was initially of a homogeneous, primordial composition, and highly convective at its main sequence turn on.
These are the two assumptions that are false, and therefore they are the two assumptions that make standard gas model theory "false".
While the third assumption is at least a logical assumption, the behaviors of the solar wind (acceleration) and the behaviors of the corona demonstrate that it is false. The sun is electrically "wired" to it's heliosheath and it electrically interacts with it's heliosheath just as the Earth is connected to it's magnetosphere and electrically interacts with the magnetosphere via the aurora.
[snip]
I think you have misunderstood the logic of the paper, Michael.
It sets out to present the standard solar model, and that model does indeed include this assumption.
It also is very clear about how the model should be tested - its outputs match the observables, quantitatively; or, in the paper's own words "If the model can accurately predict what is observed, then it is reasonable to assume that it can accurately tell astronomers about what they cannot observe, both inside the Sun and its behavior at other epochs."
There's a table near the bottom of page 2 that gives an example of what two other authors regard as acceptable, wrt 'accurately predict': solar luminosity, age, and radius within (rather narrow) ranges. Note that the behaviour of the solar wind and the corona are not in that table. While I can't speak for the author (Kevin France), I'd say your comment goes to the scope of the model - if it does not seek to address the solar wind or corona, there's no surprise that it doesn't account for all aspects of observations of each.
But your comments reminded me: have your found those papers - by Alfven and/or Peratt - which describe the details of the hypothesis that "the bulk of the total energy release of the sun comes from an external energy source (flowing electrons)" and which include estimates of what that energy is?
I'll address the rest of your post (the [snipped] part) later.
Well, I must say it's a bit difficult to 'embrace', in a scientific sense, something that's not a theory (in a scientific sense), that is not published in any relevant peer-reviewed journal, and so on.
Birkeland published his work. Alfven published his work. Peratt published his work. Bruce published his work too. You keep making statements that are easily demonstrated to be false. While the peer review process is useful, reality doesn't care what humans publish. It does what it does, irrespective of what we publish.
Every single aspect of EU theory was developed in a 'classical' manner. It was developed from information gained in controlled scientific testing, in controlled scientific experiments. Experimentation is a key element of many branches of science, including EU theory.
There is a legitimate "qualification" vs. "quantification" issue here. Standard theory is well quantified, but many aspects of standard theory (like magnetic reconnection theory) have never been "qualified" in laboratory tests. The reverse is true of EU theory. It is extremely well "qualified" in every scientific sense, but it lacks quantification. Which is "better" from a scientific perspective?
IMO the answer to that question is found in the Chapman vs. Birkeland debate from the 30's(?)- early 1970's. All throughout that timeline, Chapman's ideas were considered "superior" because they were better quantified. Reality didn't care one bit how well "quantified" Chapman's theories were. In the end, Birkeland's "classic" use of standard scientific methods won the debate, and history has a tendency to repeat itself.
So it will be with EU theory vs. standard theories of today IMO. Over time, Birkeland's ideas will triumph because every key aspect of EU theory has been tested in a real lab, with real plasma in real controlled scientific tests. As they say, one test is worth a thousand expert opinions, and one test is also worth a thousand mathematical models.
FYI, I find it equally difficult to "embrace" a quantified theory that lacks qualification in any standard scientific sense. Therein lies the rub for me personally. I can't just ignore the weaknesses of standard theory now that my eyes have been opened to the work of Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, Peratt and many others. Their ideas may still not have the same mathematical elegance of standard theory, but their ideas work in the real world in real tests, with real plasma. I've never seen anyone move plasma in a controlled test using dark energy, or inflation, so I can't help be remain a skeptic when it comes to DE and inflation (and non baryonic forms of "dark matter").
Perhaps I misunderstood again; I thought a key aspect of 'EU theory' was that "the bulk of the total energy release of the sun comes from an external energy source (flowing electrons)"; am I mistaken?
Somewhat off-topic: to what extent are the various O. Manuel papers consistent with 'EU theory'?
Finally, are you claiming that all of Birkeland's ideas are essential parts of 'EU theory'?
Oh, and have you "seen anyone move plasma in a controlled test using" MOND?
Quote:
Quote:
Thanks for your concern over my scientific well-being, but I'm happy to continue to not embrace something which does not exist.
Birkeland's ideas and Alfven's mathematical theories and ideas exist and have been published Nereid. Your denial of their existence won't make them go away.
True, they do exist.
The question is, what constitutes 'EU theory'?
Quote:
More importantly, Chapman's mathematical models, elegant as they were, just could not make reality change it's nature at the end of the day. At the end of the day, it will be shown that this is an "electromagnetic" universe, filled with current flows of all kinds. We can see the magnetic fields around these current flows form between the Sun and the Earth. We can observe them in distance clouds of plasma, and we can see the effect of these electrical currents on the solar atmosphere as it heats the coronal to millions of degrees, and accelerates the solar wind particles.
Indeed.
However, for now, I'm focussed on how the Sun shines, and the extent to which 'EU theory' (whatever that is) can account for the the Sun's present energy output, the stability of that output over the past ~30 years, and also over the past ~4 billion years.
The final assumption of the standard solar model is that the sun was initially of a homogeneous, primordial composition, and highly convective at its main sequence turn on.
These are the two assumptions that are false, and therefore they are the two assumptions that make standard gas model theory "false".
[snip]
The forth assumption is show stopper IMO. Elements tend to mass separate in large gravity wells, and there is a "stratification subsurface" sitting smack dab in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone. This assumption is falsified by satellite evidence.
I certainly didn't see any "prediction" in that standard solar theory paper that suggested we would find a stratification subsurface sitting at .995R that tends block the up drafting and down drafting of plasmas. That tends to shoot a giant hole in the "mixed by convection" concept. When we observe that LMSAL running difference image, we can see heavy materials fly up from the CME event and fall back down to the "surface" as coronal rain.
Homogeneous mixing of elements is not even a logical assumption to begin with IMO since we have ample evidence that plasmas tend to mass separate in the presence of strong gravitational and EM fields. The sun has both of these in abundant quantities.
These are the two key "assumptions" of standard solar theory that cannot be supported by recent evidence, and that are in fact falsified by recent satellite evidence. Coronal rain can be seen falling back to the sun, even while hydrogen atoms stream off it's surface. There is no way that iron and nickel ions will stay "mixed" in a homogeneous fashion in a gravity well as powerful as the sun.
For some reason the link to the paper didn't work for me, so I'm relying on a cached copy (which is 'v1').
First, one of the authors of astro-ph/0510111 is 'Michael Mozina' - is that you Michael?
Assuming you are, and assuming that you have applied the 'qualifying science' criteria you describe in several of your posts in this thread to a paper of which you are an author, would you mind providing references to relevant papers which report "controlled scientific testing, in controlled scientific experiments" of the following (quotes are from that paper, unless otherwise noted):
* "repulsive interactions in super-massive neutron stars [as a possible] energy source that fragments cosmic matter to create clusters of galaxies, galaxies of stars, and planetary systems"
* "at Z/A = 0 repulsive interactions between neutrons [...] generate solar luminosity"
* "compact, neutron-rich stellar objects with A > ≈ 10^57 amu ≈ 1 solar mass (Mo)"
* "Elements tend to mass separate in large gravity wells" and "plasmas tend to mass separate in the presence of strong gravitational and EM fields" (this post)
I did not read, in this paper or any that it cites, any mention of the energy transport mechanism, from postulated neutron star core source to the surface. If I did miss it, would you be kind enough to point us to which paper it's in?
I did not read, in this paper or any that it cites, any mention of the density, composition, or temperature profiles - whether 1D (radial), 2D, or 3D - that would be consistent with the proposed model. If I did miss it, would you be kind enough to point us to which paper it's in?
I did not read, in this paper or any that it cites, any mention of how - quantitatively - the proposed energy mechanisms generate the observed solar luminosity (as far as I can tell, they work backwards: Sun's luminosity is X, observed electron neutrino flux suggests Y, so the two other mechanisms proposed must account for the difference, X - Y). If I did miss it, would you be kind enough to point us to which paper it's in?
I did not read, in this paper or any that it cites, any mention of consistency with 'EU theory'. If I did miss it, would you be kind enough to point us to which paper it's in?
I did not read, in this paper or any that it cites, any mention of analyses of helioseimology data incorporating propagation of sound through "rigid, iron-rich structures that Mozina [16] noticed below the Sun’s fluid photosphere in images from the SOHO and TRACE satellites" (as far as I know, [19]'s conclusion that there is "stratification at a relatively shallow depth beneath the visible photosphere, at about 0.5% solar radii (about 0.005 Ro)" depends critically upon assumptions that the medium through which the sound is propagating is a fluid). If I did miss it, would you be kind enough to point us to which paper it's in?
Perhaps I misunderstood again; I thought a key aspect of 'EU theory' was that "the bulk of the total energy release of the sun comes from an external energy source (flowing electrons)"; am I mistaken?
That would probably depend on whom you ask. If you ask Oliver, I suspect he'll say no. If you ask me, I'll probably be inclined to answer "probably". Unfortunately there is no definite answer on how much energy is internally generated and how much is externally generated. If the core for instance is a neutron core that spins rapidly inside the shell, then induction forces will play a role. Neutron ejections from the core will play a role in that scenario as well. If the core contains a lot of fissionable material, that may also produce energy locally. I think the only "consensus" you could make is that "most" EU proponents believe that the majority of the energy comes from the flow of currents through the universe, but most of open to other forms of energy emissions at a local level as well.
Quote:
Somewhat off-topic: to what extent are the various O. Manuel papers consistent with 'EU theory'?
I would say that they are consistent with EU theory in that his theories would result in electrical suns that pretty much powered the universal currents of the universe. In other words his model makes a local sun it's own generator of electrical current. It's a bit inconsistent with EU theory in a larger sense, because it doesn't necessarily require an external energy source, and there does seem to be an external energy source involved.
Quote:
Finally, are you claiming that all of Birkeland's ideas are essential parts of 'EU theory'?
I would say that all his core theories are essential parts of EU theory that need to be confirmed the way Birkeland went about confirming things, namely with in situ measurements. The difference between Chapman's math and Birkeland's math were based on the fact that Birkeland specifically tested his idea, and he specifically and meticulously (at risk to his life) took in-situ measurements in the most hostile environment on the planet so that he could compare his experiments to real life measurements in the field. Chapman just sort of did his thing on paper and never really bothered to take the time to verify his ideas in the field or in the lab. He never "qualified" his theories in any way.
Quote:
Oh, and have you "seen anyone move plasma in a controlled test using" MOND?
I actually think that astronomers currently grossly underestimate the masses of suns because they are not mostly made of hydrogen and helium, but rather they are mostly made of iron an nickel. In a sun our size, it might not make much difference, but in larger suns I'm pretty certain that it would make a difference. I tend to be in the "MACHO" camp of "dark matter' theory (Gah it hurts to even say "dark matter") rather than MOND theory.
Quote:
True, they do exist.
So why haven't you read Alfven's book yet like I asked you to do over a year ago? I mean you spend all this time yacking away at me in cyberspace and whining about my lack of mathematical presentation, but when I point you to the obvious best sources of information that exist on this topic (from the guy with the Nobel prize), you simply ignore my suggestions. You can only lead a horse to water...... :)
Quote:
The question is, what constitutes 'EU theory'?
That's a really good point actually. There are a number of variations on the same basic theme. There are iron sun versions, there are neutron core versions (they can be independently chosen), there are fission versions, there are hydrogen sun versions, etc. I tend to be a "Birkeland purist" as I see it, which includes a metal sphere and an electro-magnetic core, which I tend to believe is made of heavy materials and acts like any other heavy plasma. Birkeland lived in a day when iron sun theories were still considered viable, and he seemed to be leaning that way, and I sure seem to lean that way based on what I observe in satellite images.
The crust however prevents me from "looking inside" to see exactly what's going in inside the sun, so it is really difficult to verify any variation on the same theme.
The way Birkeland went about the process in the "classic' or standard scientific method. He took in situ measurements and compared them to his laboratory experiments, just like all other branches of science. That is the only way to verify and falsify different EU variations on the same theme.
Quote:
However, for now, I'm focussed on how the Sun shines, and the extent to which 'EU theory' (whatever that is) can account for the the Sun's present energy output, the stability of that output over the past ~30 years, and also over the past ~4 billion years.
Can we please get back to discussing this?
Sure. Oliver's notion of a fully internal energy source is one option. A fission model is one option. An internal and external fusion model is one option. A fully externally powered sun is one option too. Of course we an mix and match and combine ideas as well. Which option(s) would you like to discuss?
Perhaps I misunderstood again; I thought a key aspect of 'EU theory' was that "the bulk of the total energy release of the sun comes from an external energy source (flowing electrons)"; am I mistaken?
That would probably depend on whom you ask. If you ask Oliver, I suspect he'll say no. If you ask me, I'll probably be inclined to answer "probably". Unfortunately there is no definite answer on how much energy is internally generated and how much is externally generated. If the core for instance is a neutron core that spins rapidly inside the shell, then induction forces will play a role. Neutron ejections from the core will play a role in that scenario as well. If the core contains a lot of fissionable material, that may also produce energy locally. I think the only "consensus" you could make is that "most" EU proponents believe that the majority of the energy comes from the flow of currents through the universe, but most of open to other forms of energy emissions at a local level as well.
Quote:
Somewhat off-topic: to what extent are the various O. Manuel papers consistent with 'EU theory'?
I would say that they are consistent with EU theory in that his theories would result in electrical suns that pretty much powered the universal currents of the universe. In other words his model makes a local sun it's own generator of electrical current. It's a bit inconsistent with EU theory in a larger sense, because it doesn't necessarily require an external energy source, and there does seem to be an external energy source involved.
Quote:
Finally, are you claiming that all of Birkeland's ideas are essential parts of 'EU theory'?
I would say that all his core theories are essential parts of EU theory that need to be confirmed the way Birkeland went about confirming things, namely with in situ measurements. The difference between Chapman's math and Birkeland's math were based on the fact that Birkeland specifically tested his idea, and he specifically and meticulously (at risk to his life) took in-situ measurements in the most hostile environment on the planet so that he could compare his experiments to real life measurements in the field. Chapman just sort of did his thing on paper and never really bothered to take the time to verify his ideas in the field or in the lab. He never "qualified" his theories in any way.
Quote:
Oh, and have you "seen anyone move plasma in a controlled test using" MOND?
I actually think that astronomers currently grossly underestimate the masses of suns because they are not mostly made of hydrogen and helium, but rather they are mostly made of iron an nickel. In a sun our size, it might not make much difference, but in larger suns I'm pretty certain that it would make a difference. I tend to be in the "MACHO" camp of "dark matter' theory (Gah it hurts to even say "dark matter") rather than MOND theory.
Quote:
True, they do exist.
So why haven't you read Alfven's book yet like I asked you to do over a year ago? I mean you spend all this time yacking away at me in cyberspace and whining about my lack of mathematical presentation, but when I point you to the obvious best sources of information that exist on this topic (from the guy with the Nobel prize), you simply ignore my suggestions. You can only lead a horse to water...... :)
Quote:
The question is, what constitutes 'EU theory'?
That's a really good point actually. There are a number of variations on the same basic theme. There are iron sun versions, there are neutron core versions (they can be independently chosen), there are fission versions, there are hydrogen sun versions, etc. I tend to be a "Birkeland purist" as I see it, which includes a metal sphere and an electro-magnetic core, which I tend to believe is made of heavy materials and acts like any other heavy plasma. Birkeland lived in a day when iron sun theories were still considered viable, and he seemed to be leaning that way, and I sure seem to lean that way based on what I observe in satellite images.
The crust however prevents me from "looking inside" to see exactly what's going in inside the sun, so it is really difficult to verify any variation on the same theme.
The way Birkeland went about the process in the "classic' or standard scientific method. He took in situ measurements and compared them to his laboratory experiments, just like all other branches of science. That is the only way to verify and falsify different EU variations on the same theme.
Quote:
However, for now, I'm focussed on how the Sun shines, and the extent to which 'EU theory' (whatever that is) can account for the the Sun's present energy output, the stability of that output over the past ~30 years, and also over the past ~4 billion years.
Can we please get back to discussing this?
Sure. Oliver's notion of a fully internal energy source is one option. A fission model is one option. An internal and external fusion model is one option. A fully externally powered sun is one option too. Of course we an mix and match and combine ideas as well. Which option(s) would you like to discuss?
Ya know Michael, I think any further discussion should really take place in a forum focussed on the philosophy of science ... based on what you have written in this thread, it seems you have a very different view of the nature of astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology, space/plasma physics) than I do. And I'd venture to suggest that most contemporary astronomers (etc) would agree with me.
To say this another way: if we lack mutual agreement on the basis for a discussion, we will keep talking past one another, and nothing will be achieved but the creation of a great many posts.
That there is a (pretty big) gulf wrt the nature of astronomy (etc), as a science, is clear to me, and clear to you (I think) ... some of the key points of difference are easily stated, perhaps a sound-bite summary would be that I can't see how your view of astronomy as a science can be squared away with Mike Hewson's earlier post*.
To state a purely personal view, I'm not sure why you have chosen to post here, given that the default 'ground rule' for any sub-forum called 'Science' would be 'as can be determined from a study of the work of those called 'scientists'' (or something similar). I mean, sooner or later, discussions on such fora will end up with the recognition - fuzzy, clear, or otherwise - that one very big difference between views expressed concerns at least some elements of what constitutes astronomy (etc), as a science.
So, I guess the time has come for me to stop discussion with you, to wish you all the best for 2008, ... and to ask that when you have done controlled scientific experiments, in your lab, on mini-neutron stars, would you mind letting me know?
* "A 'good' theory should :
- explain all extant data.
- NOT contradict extant data ( like predicting a particle that WOULD have been observed ).
- preferably account/predict/suggest some new observations.
- comfortably abut with other theory domains at the borders.
where 'explain' means the radii of measurement and the radii of theory overlap ie. there is an intersecting region."
Ya know Michael, I think any further discussion should really take place in a forum focussed on the philosophy of science ... based on what you have written in this thread, it seems you have a very different view of the nature of astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology, space/plasma physics) than I do.
I've noticed that too Nereid! :)
My philosophy of science is essentially the "classical" approach to science as best exemplified by Kristian Birkeland. Birkeland risked his own life (and probably cut it short) to take in-situ measurements in the world's harshest conditions. He then compared these in situ observations to (relatively dangerous) laboratory testing that he personally did in his lab when he wasn't running around setting up measuring stations. Birkeland was essentially the quintessential scientist IMO. He used a "classic"" approach to science, including control mechanisms, and in-situ confirmation. Unlike Chapman, he didn't just sit around with a pencil and paper playing with unqualified ideas at his desk. He methodically experimented with his ideas in controlled conditions to the best of his abilities and he also compared his experimental results with in-situ measurements that he went to great lengths to get. That is is the classical approach to science Nereid and it applies to all branches of science.
There is nothing "unique" or unusual about my desire to stick to the classic scientific method where possible. That's pretty much SOP for every branch of science.
Quote:
And I'd venture to suggest that most contemporary astronomers (etc) would agree with me.
Is that an appeal to popularity fallacy, or an appeal to authority fallacy? :)
I'm not ever sure that's true actually. In my discussions with astronomers, most of they would *like* to stick with a classical method of scientific exploration, but they are currently limited by technology (or lack thereof). You're a bit unusual in my experience in that you seem to devalue this classic method of scientific investigation in a way that is unique. I think we all realize that many elements of our theories won't be able to be tested in lab, but that does not mean that we should make not attempt to do so, or that we should not reap the benefits of that testing wherever possible. IMO Birkeland did a lot to discover the nature of the universe we live in using classical scientific methods. I certainly would not "throw away" or devalue that kind of scientific effort. I don't really meet many folks that would, and I doubt even you do either. Somehow however, inside you there is a disconnect between the "predictions" Birkeland made, the confirmations that have followed since then, and your personal respect for his work and his theories.
Quote:
To say this another way: if we lack mutual agreement on the basis for a discussion, we will keep talking past one another, and nothing will be achieved but the creation of a great many posts.
That's why I suggested that you read Alfven's book. It explains some of the core ideas behind EU theory from a mathematical and theoretical perspective, and it picks up where Birkeland left off. I find it hard to discuss these ideas with you personally because you don't seem interested in understanding my views.
Quote:
That there is a (pretty big) gulf wrt the nature of astronomy (etc), as a science, is clear to me, and clear to you (I think) ... some of the key points of difference are easily stated, perhaps a sound-bite summary would be that I can't see how your view of astronomy as a science can be squared away with Mike Hewson's earlier post*.
I don't actually believe that EU theory as it stands currently can be completely squared away with Mike's list, particularly that part about explaining all available data. Then again, I don't think that standard theory can do so either, certainly not without evoking metaphysical entities that have no logical testing mechanisms of any sort and have not been qualified in any way.
Quote:
To state a purely personal view, I'm not sure why you have chosen to post here,
I chose to post here because I noticed that my website and these ideas were being discussed here and I thought it would be good idea for me to explain and defend these idea.
Quote:
given that the default 'ground rule' for any sub-forum called 'Science' would be 'as can be determined from a study of the work of those called 'scientists'' (or something similar).
Birkeland was a scientist. So was Alfven. So was Bruce. So is Peratt. I have learned a lot from these "so called scientists".
Quote:
I mean, sooner or later, discussions on such fora will end up with the recognition - fuzzy, clear, or otherwise - that one very big difference between views expressed concerns at least some elements of what constitutes astronomy (etc), as a science.
You're actually the only person I've ever met that seems to take some exception to the standard (empirical testing) method of doing "science". Most folks (me included) acknowledge that some aspects of any theory cannot be empirically tested, but most would agree that we should test our theories in controlled ways in every instance where that is currently possible.
Quote:
So, I guess the time has come for me to stop discussion with you, to wish you all the best for 2008, ... and to ask that when you have done controlled scientific experiments, in your lab, on mini-neutron stars, would you mind letting me know?
Sure. In the mean time I remain open minded toward more "mundane" options that don't require neutron materials at all. IMO that is what good scientists do. They keep an open mind and attempt to explain what they observe using known laws and forces of nature. They attempt to "simplify" the ideas whenever possible.
Quote:
* "A 'good' theory should :
- explain all extant data.
I believe that Mike would be likely to agree with me that standard theory doesn't explain *all* extant data. I've never seen anyone explain "magnetic reconnection" for instance. By the way, this is one "theory" that not only *can* be tested in a lab, it *should* be tested in a lab *before* it is ever used to "explain"
some uncontrolled observation.
Quote:
- NOT contradict extant data ( like predicting a particle that WOULD have been observed ).
Inflation contradicts ever known law of physics on the books. No other scalar or vector field in nature retains near constant density over several exponential increases in volume. Inflation was used to "predict" a homogeneous layout of matter, but now we discover that the universe has gaping giant holes in it that defy all the previous "predictions" of inflation. Inflation theory not only contradicts the known physical laws of nature, it has been falsified by observational evidence. Now what? Do we ignore that gaping hole in the universe? Do we ignore the fact that no other known vector or scalar field in nature acts like inflation?
In contrast, EU theory is built on "little steps", small steps, and information that is "closer to home". It *can* explain some observations close to home but it cannot explain them all. I know of no theory that explains them all. It may some day explain the "big picture" issues as well, and Alfven makes a valiant attempt to do that, but there is little if any way to verify some aspects of his theories (ambiplasmas for instance), so it's hard to tell how "well" it does at "big picture" questions.
Quote:
- preferably account/predict/suggest some new observations.
I remind you that Birkeland's early EU predictions have been verified with "new observations" since his death. In that way, EU theory has already been "validated" by newer observations and verified predictions. EU theory passes this test just fine, whereas Chapman's purely mathematical approach failed to do so.
Quote:
- comfortably abut with other theory domains at the borders.
EU theory shares it's domain quite comfortably with plasma physics, electronics, basic physics, GR theory, ect. In this respect EU theory passes with flying colors, whereas inflation theory does not.
Quote:
where 'explain' means the radii of measurement and the radii of theory overlap ie. there is an intersecting region."
If you ever do get around to reading Alfven's book, I think you'd see that he's simply taking Birkeland's basic ideas and he shows how they overlap with plasma physics and MHD theory. He also demonstrates (mathematically) that everything he's proposing is simply a scaling effect of these basic principles. In this respect EU theory passes this test with flying colors.
The most recent article I could find (from last month) says that what was thought to be the observation of Alfven waves were actually kink waves (See New Kink in Sun's Strange Corona). This article also mentions the need for more observations to solve the mystery of coronal heating, and mentions other upcoming missions – one from NASA (Solar Dynamics Observatory) scheduled for launch at the end of this year or early 2009, and a mission from ESA (Solar Orbiter) scheduled also for 2015...
Err ... Michael, I be curious
)
Err ... Michael, I be curious as to what precisely is your point here. This article merely discusses radiative transfer mechanisms in the outer layers of the Sun. They are talking of how to interpret observed data with a view to accounting for transverse electric field polarizations of some spectral lines. Their disclosed calculations use standard mainstream electromagnetism as applied to a complex scenario. Your emboldened quote refers, in the paper's body, to their modelling that inward electron trajectories fit better than outward proton ones. By extension they are curious as to whether said spectral qualities can be used as an accurate indicator of patterns of charge movement, as a future observational tool. There is nothing ground breaking here, simply whether some characteristics of hydrogen line excitations can be better explained by collisions with protons vs collisions with electrons, in the presence of considerable randomizing effects on those chosen polarisations from other mechanisms. While we ought perhaps applaud them for attempting to model what is clearly a difficult calculational problem I can't see anything in their approach that warrants a round vs flat earth comparison. Since the basis and machinery of their modelling is quite bland EM theory, is there an aspect that you would identify as EU-ish ( whatever that would mean )?
Also is there a *quantitative* prediction for the scenario from EU theory - that we could enjoin in a comparison of fitness of alternate theories/models? In the absence of such a quantified theoretical result, as Nereid indicated, we are not in the realm of scientific discourse in the modern sense described earlier. That wouldn't be a shocking problem for EU, but simply a signal that it needs to spruce up, mature or whatever, in order to do so.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: Err ... Michael, I be
)
Well, my original point is that this technique may provide us with a logical way to determine the direction of the current flow. The polarization techniques could tell us whether electrons are causing these effects or protons are causing emissions. That kind of got lost on my post however now that I read what I wrote. I really need to do more proof reading and be more specific in my statements. I'm sorry for suggesting this was *from* the THEMIS data, I meant to suggest that this paper allows us to *interpret* the current flow direction from the THEMIS data. I got busy and didn't actually proofread what I wrote. Sorry about any confusion on my part.
First of all, let me acknowledge that my terse and flippant response was poorly worded, inaccurate, and misleading. My bad.
I do applaud them on two counts, both for the technique itself (which seems very logical) and for the mathematical model they present us with.
According to almost all theories I'm reading about "magnetic reconnection", the basic concept seems to relate to energy streaming down from the corona and slamming into the chromosphere and photosphere. In other words there is energy come down into the sun from higher areas of the atmosphere. This "method" they outline will allow us to determine the directly on the current flows in that magnetic rope. The idea here was to set the stage for determining the direction of the electron flows inside the rope. In theory we should also be able to use a "right hand rule" approach as well, and we should be able to verify the current flow patterns inside the THEMIS rope with the method outlined by the authors.
Well, I suppose we could take the THEMIS press release and 'postdict' something after the fact, but that seems like cheating at this point. :) Besides, I don't really know what the voltages might be, so determining the amperage is going to be a pain in the neck. :) I hear you on this point however. I'll have to think about it.
Well Mike, I wholeheartedly agree that EU theory needs a lot of work on the quantification side of life. It's an extremely well 'qualified' theory IMO, but it is still very poorly quantified, even to an EU enthusiast like me. I do believe however that by putting THEMIS data together with magnetic field measurements from Hinode, we should be able to reconstruct the flows patterns between the sun and the Earth and trace them all the way down to the corona, chromosphere and photosphere. This seems like a very logical way to begin to "quantify" EU ideas, and I look forward to reading the Themis papers to see what techniques they are using to measure the energy exchanges.
IMO these are very exciting times for EU theory. A lot of new technologies are coming online now, and the kinds of techniques that we might use to determine the current flow patterns in the solar atmosphere are becoming much better defined. I do think you'll see EU theory become better quantified over the next few years. It seems to me that the biggest "unknown" in EU theory is what the voltage difference is between the photosphere and the heliosphere, and how much current flows through the sun. Now if we could just run a long wire from the photosphere to the heliosphere..... :)
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: Did you mean to link to
)
[embarrassment]Well, yes, but I didn't mean to attribute this particular paper *TO* the THEMIS team. I should have said "related to the THEMIS data", not "from" the THEMIS data. Sorry about that.[/embarrassment] :)
I agree that my statement was both confusing and misleading. My bad.
As I explained to Mike, I was simply trying to offer us a way to determine the current flow direction inside of the magnetic rope.
Well, those electric return currents were not seen inside a magnetic rope that was seen to flow between the sun and the Earth. If we use the technique from this paper we should be able to determine which direction the electrons are traveling. Between high resolution Hinode images and the THEMIS data, we should be able to track that current flow through the solar atmosphere and through the magnetic rope that connects the sun to the Earth and visa versa.
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: From ChipperQ's
)
I think you have misunderstood the logic of the paper, Michael.
It sets out to present the standard solar model, and that model does indeed include this assumption.
It also is very clear about how the model should be tested - its outputs match the observables, quantitatively; or, in the paper's own words "If the model can accurately predict what is observed, then it is reasonable to assume that it can accurately tell astronomers about what they cannot observe, both inside the Sun and its behavior at other epochs."
There's a table near the bottom of page 2 that gives an example of what two other authors regard as acceptable, wrt 'accurately predict': solar luminosity, age, and radius within (rather narrow) ranges. Note that the behaviour of the solar wind and the corona are not in that table. While I can't speak for the author (Kevin France), I'd say your comment goes to the scope of the model - if it does not seek to address the solar wind or corona, there's no surprise that it doesn't account for all aspects of observations of each.
But your comments reminded me: have your found those papers - by Alfven and/or Peratt - which describe the details of the hypothesis that "the bulk of the total energy release of the sun comes from an external energy source (flowing electrons)" and which include estimates of what that energy is?
I'll address the rest of your post (the [snipped] part) later.
RE: [snip] RE: Well, I
)
Perhaps I misunderstood again; I thought a key aspect of 'EU theory' was that "the bulk of the total energy release of the sun comes from an external energy source (flowing electrons)"; am I mistaken?
Somewhat off-topic: to what extent are the various O. Manuel papers consistent with 'EU theory'?
Finally, are you claiming that all of Birkeland's ideas are essential parts of 'EU theory'?
Oh, and have you "seen anyone move plasma in a controlled test using" MOND?
True, they do exist.
The question is, what constitutes 'EU theory'?
Indeed.
However, for now, I'm focussed on how the Sun shines, and the extent to which 'EU theory' (whatever that is) can account for the the Sun's present energy output, the stability of that output over the past ~30 years, and also over the past ~4 billion years.
Can we please get back to discussing this?
Continued ... RE: From
)
Continued ...
For some reason the link to the paper didn't work for me, so I'm relying on a cached copy (which is 'v1').
First, one of the authors of astro-ph/0510111 is 'Michael Mozina' - is that you Michael?
Assuming you are, and assuming that you have applied the 'qualifying science' criteria you describe in several of your posts in this thread to a paper of which you are an author, would you mind providing references to relevant papers which report "controlled scientific testing, in controlled scientific experiments" of the following (quotes are from that paper, unless otherwise noted):
* "repulsive interactions in super-massive neutron stars [as a possible] energy source that fragments cosmic matter to create clusters of galaxies, galaxies of stars, and planetary systems"
* "at Z/A = 0 repulsive interactions between neutrons [...] generate solar luminosity"
* "compact, neutron-rich stellar objects with A > ≈ 10^57 amu ≈ 1 solar mass (Mo)"
* "Elements tend to mass separate in large gravity wells" and "plasmas tend to mass separate in the presence of strong gravitational and EM fields" (this post)
I did not read, in this paper or any that it cites, any mention of the energy transport mechanism, from postulated neutron star core source to the surface. If I did miss it, would you be kind enough to point us to which paper it's in?
I did not read, in this paper or any that it cites, any mention of the density, composition, or temperature profiles - whether 1D (radial), 2D, or 3D - that would be consistent with the proposed model. If I did miss it, would you be kind enough to point us to which paper it's in?
I did not read, in this paper or any that it cites, any mention of how - quantitatively - the proposed energy mechanisms generate the observed solar luminosity (as far as I can tell, they work backwards: Sun's luminosity is X, observed electron neutrino flux suggests Y, so the two other mechanisms proposed must account for the difference, X - Y). If I did miss it, would you be kind enough to point us to which paper it's in?
I did not read, in this paper or any that it cites, any mention of consistency with 'EU theory'. If I did miss it, would you be kind enough to point us to which paper it's in?
I did not read, in this paper or any that it cites, any mention of analyses of helioseimology data incorporating propagation of sound through "rigid, iron-rich structures that Mozina [16] noticed below the Sun’s fluid photosphere in images from the SOHO and TRACE satellites" (as far as I know, [19]'s conclusion that there is "stratification at a relatively shallow depth beneath the visible photosphere, at about 0.5% solar radii (about 0.005 Ro)" depends critically upon assumptions that the medium through which the sound is propagating is a fluid). If I did miss it, would you be kind enough to point us to which paper it's in?
RE: Perhaps I misunderstood
)
That would probably depend on whom you ask. If you ask Oliver, I suspect he'll say no. If you ask me, I'll probably be inclined to answer "probably". Unfortunately there is no definite answer on how much energy is internally generated and how much is externally generated. If the core for instance is a neutron core that spins rapidly inside the shell, then induction forces will play a role. Neutron ejections from the core will play a role in that scenario as well. If the core contains a lot of fissionable material, that may also produce energy locally. I think the only "consensus" you could make is that "most" EU proponents believe that the majority of the energy comes from the flow of currents through the universe, but most of open to other forms of energy emissions at a local level as well.
I would say that they are consistent with EU theory in that his theories would result in electrical suns that pretty much powered the universal currents of the universe. In other words his model makes a local sun it's own generator of electrical current. It's a bit inconsistent with EU theory in a larger sense, because it doesn't necessarily require an external energy source, and there does seem to be an external energy source involved.
I would say that all his core theories are essential parts of EU theory that need to be confirmed the way Birkeland went about confirming things, namely with in situ measurements. The difference between Chapman's math and Birkeland's math were based on the fact that Birkeland specifically tested his idea, and he specifically and meticulously (at risk to his life) took in-situ measurements in the most hostile environment on the planet so that he could compare his experiments to real life measurements in the field. Chapman just sort of did his thing on paper and never really bothered to take the time to verify his ideas in the field or in the lab. He never "qualified" his theories in any way.
I actually think that astronomers currently grossly underestimate the masses of suns because they are not mostly made of hydrogen and helium, but rather they are mostly made of iron an nickel. In a sun our size, it might not make much difference, but in larger suns I'm pretty certain that it would make a difference. I tend to be in the "MACHO" camp of "dark matter' theory (Gah it hurts to even say "dark matter") rather than MOND theory.
So why haven't you read Alfven's book yet like I asked you to do over a year ago? I mean you spend all this time yacking away at me in cyberspace and whining about my lack of mathematical presentation, but when I point you to the obvious best sources of information that exist on this topic (from the guy with the Nobel prize), you simply ignore my suggestions. You can only lead a horse to water...... :)
That's a really good point actually. There are a number of variations on the same basic theme. There are iron sun versions, there are neutron core versions (they can be independently chosen), there are fission versions, there are hydrogen sun versions, etc. I tend to be a "Birkeland purist" as I see it, which includes a metal sphere and an electro-magnetic core, which I tend to believe is made of heavy materials and acts like any other heavy plasma. Birkeland lived in a day when iron sun theories were still considered viable, and he seemed to be leaning that way, and I sure seem to lean that way based on what I observe in satellite images.
The crust however prevents me from "looking inside" to see exactly what's going in inside the sun, so it is really difficult to verify any variation on the same theme.
The way Birkeland went about the process in the "classic' or standard scientific method. He took in situ measurements and compared them to his laboratory experiments, just like all other branches of science. That is the only way to verify and falsify different EU variations on the same theme.
Sure. Oliver's notion of a fully internal energy source is one option. A fission model is one option. An internal and external fusion model is one option. A fully externally powered sun is one option too. Of course we an mix and match and combine ideas as well. Which option(s) would you like to discuss?
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: RE: Perhaps I
)
Ya know Michael, I think any further discussion should really take place in a forum focussed on the philosophy of science ... based on what you have written in this thread, it seems you have a very different view of the nature of astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology, space/plasma physics) than I do. And I'd venture to suggest that most contemporary astronomers (etc) would agree with me.
To say this another way: if we lack mutual agreement on the basis for a discussion, we will keep talking past one another, and nothing will be achieved but the creation of a great many posts.
That there is a (pretty big) gulf wrt the nature of astronomy (etc), as a science, is clear to me, and clear to you (I think) ... some of the key points of difference are easily stated, perhaps a sound-bite summary would be that I can't see how your view of astronomy as a science can be squared away with Mike Hewson's earlier post*.
To state a purely personal view, I'm not sure why you have chosen to post here, given that the default 'ground rule' for any sub-forum called 'Science' would be 'as can be determined from a study of the work of those called 'scientists'' (or something similar). I mean, sooner or later, discussions on such fora will end up with the recognition - fuzzy, clear, or otherwise - that one very big difference between views expressed concerns at least some elements of what constitutes astronomy (etc), as a science.
So, I guess the time has come for me to stop discussion with you, to wish you all the best for 2008, ... and to ask that when you have done controlled scientific experiments, in your lab, on mini-neutron stars, would you mind letting me know?
* "A 'good' theory should :
- explain all extant data.
- NOT contradict extant data ( like predicting a particle that WOULD have been observed ).
- preferably account/predict/suggest some new observations.
- comfortably abut with other theory domains at the borders.
where 'explain' means the radii of measurement and the radii of theory overlap ie. there is an intersecting region."
RE: Ya know Michael, I
)
I've noticed that too Nereid! :)
My philosophy of science is essentially the "classical" approach to science as best exemplified by Kristian Birkeland. Birkeland risked his own life (and probably cut it short) to take in-situ measurements in the world's harshest conditions. He then compared these in situ observations to (relatively dangerous) laboratory testing that he personally did in his lab when he wasn't running around setting up measuring stations. Birkeland was essentially the quintessential scientist IMO. He used a "classic"" approach to science, including control mechanisms, and in-situ confirmation. Unlike Chapman, he didn't just sit around with a pencil and paper playing with unqualified ideas at his desk. He methodically experimented with his ideas in controlled conditions to the best of his abilities and he also compared his experimental results with in-situ measurements that he went to great lengths to get. That is is the classical approach to science Nereid and it applies to all branches of science.
There is nothing "unique" or unusual about my desire to stick to the classic scientific method where possible. That's pretty much SOP for every branch of science.
Is that an appeal to popularity fallacy, or an appeal to authority fallacy? :)
I'm not ever sure that's true actually. In my discussions with astronomers, most of they would *like* to stick with a classical method of scientific exploration, but they are currently limited by technology (or lack thereof). You're a bit unusual in my experience in that you seem to devalue this classic method of scientific investigation in a way that is unique. I think we all realize that many elements of our theories won't be able to be tested in lab, but that does not mean that we should make not attempt to do so, or that we should not reap the benefits of that testing wherever possible. IMO Birkeland did a lot to discover the nature of the universe we live in using classical scientific methods. I certainly would not "throw away" or devalue that kind of scientific effort. I don't really meet many folks that would, and I doubt even you do either. Somehow however, inside you there is a disconnect between the "predictions" Birkeland made, the confirmations that have followed since then, and your personal respect for his work and his theories.
That's why I suggested that you read Alfven's book. It explains some of the core ideas behind EU theory from a mathematical and theoretical perspective, and it picks up where Birkeland left off. I find it hard to discuss these ideas with you personally because you don't seem interested in understanding my views.
I don't actually believe that EU theory as it stands currently can be completely squared away with Mike's list, particularly that part about explaining all available data. Then again, I don't think that standard theory can do so either, certainly not without evoking metaphysical entities that have no logical testing mechanisms of any sort and have not been qualified in any way.
I chose to post here because I noticed that my website and these ideas were being discussed here and I thought it would be good idea for me to explain and defend these idea.
Birkeland was a scientist. So was Alfven. So was Bruce. So is Peratt. I have learned a lot from these "so called scientists".
You're actually the only person I've ever met that seems to take some exception to the standard (empirical testing) method of doing "science". Most folks (me included) acknowledge that some aspects of any theory cannot be empirically tested, but most would agree that we should test our theories in controlled ways in every instance where that is currently possible.
Sure. In the mean time I remain open minded toward more "mundane" options that don't require neutron materials at all. IMO that is what good scientists do. They keep an open mind and attempt to explain what they observe using known laws and forces of nature. They attempt to "simplify" the ideas whenever possible.
I believe that Mike would be likely to agree with me that standard theory doesn't explain *all* extant data. I've never seen anyone explain "magnetic reconnection" for instance. By the way, this is one "theory" that not only *can* be tested in a lab, it *should* be tested in a lab *before* it is ever used to "explain"
some uncontrolled observation.
Inflation contradicts ever known law of physics on the books. No other scalar or vector field in nature retains near constant density over several exponential increases in volume. Inflation was used to "predict" a homogeneous layout of matter, but now we discover that the universe has gaping giant holes in it that defy all the previous "predictions" of inflation. Inflation theory not only contradicts the known physical laws of nature, it has been falsified by observational evidence. Now what? Do we ignore that gaping hole in the universe? Do we ignore the fact that no other known vector or scalar field in nature acts like inflation?
In contrast, EU theory is built on "little steps", small steps, and information that is "closer to home". It *can* explain some observations close to home but it cannot explain them all. I know of no theory that explains them all. It may some day explain the "big picture" issues as well, and Alfven makes a valiant attempt to do that, but there is little if any way to verify some aspects of his theories (ambiplasmas for instance), so it's hard to tell how "well" it does at "big picture" questions.
I remind you that Birkeland's early EU predictions have been verified with "new observations" since his death. In that way, EU theory has already been "validated" by newer observations and verified predictions. EU theory passes this test just fine, whereas Chapman's purely mathematical approach failed to do so.
EU theory shares it's domain quite comfortably with plasma physics, electronics, basic physics, GR theory, ect. In this respect EU theory passes with flying colors, whereas inflation theory does not.
If you ever do get around to reading Alfven's book, I think you'd see that he's simply taking Birkeland's basic ideas and he shows how they overlap with plasma physics and MHD theory. He also demonstrates (mathematically) that everything he's proposing is simply a scaling effect of these basic principles. In this respect EU theory passes this test with flying colors.
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
Just happened on this video
)
Just happened on this video from Space.com on high-speed Alfven waves: Solar Waves in Action
The video was in the multimedia section next to this article (Ambitious NASA Probe to Fly Through Sun's Fringe) on the Solar Probe mission, currently looking at a 2015 launch window that includes 7 fly-bys around Venus on the way...
The most recent article I could find (from last month) says that what was thought to be the observation of Alfven waves were actually kink waves (See New Kink in Sun's Strange Corona). This article also mentions the need for more observations to solve the mystery of coronal heating, and mentions other upcoming missions – one from NASA (Solar Dynamics Observatory) scheduled for launch at the end of this year or early 2009, and a mission from ESA (Solar Orbiter) scheduled also for 2015...