Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

[CharlesChandler]

Lloyd had dedicated a topic to CC's research in a new NIMI thread.

I'll respond to that thread when I get to it. Right now I'm in the middle of several projects. The intent in this thread was just to get the criticisms and rebuttals of my model off of the EU forum. Since you hadn't taken a position other than just criticizing me, I didn't know what else to name the thread. After the fact, users cannot rename threads. This means that you can criticize me ad infinitum for what you consider to be a bad thread title.

I'm exposing an agenda. If you're through with this topic, let it go. I'm very content to elaborate without you.

Don't be so shy. You have mentioned that the EU is a new paradigm, and suggested that this is the natural outgrowth of the existing paradigm being overloaded with complexity, as it attempts to assimilate data that just won't fit into a modified gravity framework. And you have attempted to label me as a mainstreamer. I find all of that to boil down to a false dichotomy, an undistributed middle, and a straw man attack. But you're welcome to explicitly state and support your agenda, if you're willing to expose it to critical review.

[nick c]

Well, this statement by NASA supports Scott's model...high energy galactic electrons entering the solar system would be a reasonable expectation of his Electric Star Model.

Sure it is. Even more of a reasonable expectation would be that closer to the Sun, where the current density should be greater, and where we have considerably more satellites collecting information, the evidence of electrons streaming toward the Sun should be considerably more robust. And yet those data are conspicuously absent.

My statement was simple: NASA has discovered the incoming galactic electrons (read that as a galactic electric current) and this is an expectation of the ES model.
They were not necessarily looking for them, and that is the crux of the matter. NASA's agenda is not to test the ES model, we just have to garner what chance tidbits they discover. I am sure that Scott, Thornhill, et al, would be more than willing to help devise some tests for their models. But again, NASA is not interested.
However, your statement of "electrons streaming toward the Sun" is deceptively phrased. The model calls for a net drift of electrons toward the Sun. And there has not, to my knowledge, been any test for a net electron drift.
That being said, contrary to your statement electron flows toward the Sun have been detected by the Ulysses spacecraft.
see:
http://books.google.com/books?id=E0i1mU ... ns&f=false

These electrons counterstream relative to the hot suprathermal electrons (the halo population) that carry the solar wind electron heat flux away from the Sun; thus, they are directed sunward along the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF).

The point is that there are complex movements and interactions between the atomic particles traveling within the Sun's plasmasphere (emphasis on "plasma"). Voyager has detected the solar wind turning back toward the Sun. The ES model calls for a net flow of electronsinto the Sun. It cannot be emphasized more, there has been no observational test to measure the overall net flow of charge leaving or arriving to or from the Sun, despite your assertions.

But back to the original quote...NASA, in their press release, has stated unequivocally that they have detected incoming galactic electrons. Once inside the heliosphere what happens to those electrons? Also, how many of these electrons are being gathered? when one considers the mind boggling size of the area of the interface between the heliopause and interstellar space, and if this entire area is gathering galactic electrons, is there enough to power the Sun? I suspect that there is enough, but again there is not enough observation to test the theory at this time.

Charles, you are entitled to an opinion, but nothing that you have stated in post after post, has falsified the proposition of an externally powered Sun. Most of your criticisms stem from an absence of supportive evidence or from your failure to acknowledge supporting evidence when it is found.

[CharlesChandler]

My statement was simple: NASA has discovered the incoming galactic electrons (read that as a galactic electric current) and this is an expectation of the ES model. They were not necessarily looking for them, and that is the crux of the matter. NASA's agenda is not to test the ES model, we just have to garner what chance tidbits they discover. I am sure that Scott, Thornhill, et al, would be more than willing to help devise some tests for their models. But again, NASA is not interested. However, your statement of "electrons streaming toward the Sun" is deceptively phrased. The model calls for a net drift of electrons toward the Sun. And there has not, to my knowledge, been any test for a net electron drift.

Listen to yourself talk. Voyager detected incoming galactic electrons in the heliopause, "without looking for them". OK. But those same instruments starting collecting data as soon as the satellite got into space. How did they NOT detect such sunward electrons inside of the heliopause? Can the same instruments not detect electrons, because the people at NASA don't expect for them to be there, and then start detecting electrons later, in spite of the fact that nobody at NASA expects for them to be there? That doesn't make any sense.

Besides, if NASA had never deployed instrumentation to detect net electron drifts, they never would have found the heliospheric current sheet.

The only way to gain the benefit of the doubt here is to say that there have been a finite number of very small satellites attempting to map a very very big interplanetary medium, and perhaps the current got past them. Any substantial current would have still been detectable from a distance, by the synchrotron radiation for example. So it would have to be a very weak current. That isn't a great argument, but at least it's an argument. Saying that NASA never deployed the instrumentation isn't.

These electrons counterstream relative to the hot suprathermal electrons (the halo population) that carry the solar wind electron heat flux away from the Sun; thus, they are directed sunward along the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF).

So you have suprathermal electrons streaming away from the Sun, and then, in the vicinity of shock fronts where there are surges in the solar wind, there can be counter-streaming electrons. That isn't a net drift.

But the fact that the current hasn't been detected isn't the biggest problem with the ES model. My questions about the current regulator have never been answered. Scott's transistor isn't going to work. But I haven't even been able to get anybody to engage in a discussion of those issues. That's as telling as anything. If you want to defend the ES model, I'd be happy to lay out the criticisms (once again). But IMO, the problems are intractable.

[Lloyd]

Biased or Unbiased?

Aristarchus, Nick et al, are you people 100% confident that the EU anode Sun model is correct? If so, that's crazy, because it requires omniscience. 100% confidence requires omniscience. And I'm 99% confident that neither of you is omniscient or close to it. Nor is anyone else around here.

Up till 2 years ago I felt about 70% confident in their model, but it never seemed to fill in a lot of gaps in understanding. It doesn't explain many features in and on the Sun or within the solar system. The cathode models of Brant, Mozina/Manuel, and Charles seem to explain nearly all of the features much more clearly.

I'd say I'm 70 to 80% confident in CC's model and only 40% in the EU model now. I think you folks are too inflexible in your impressions. You get misimpressions about CC's model, thinking it's close to a mainstream model or something, but you haven't been open-minded enough to try to see if there's something to it.

Or do yous claim that you have been open-minded and have looked at it without bias and have found it hopelessly flawed? If so, I haven't heard anyone state clearly what the fatal flaws are.

Aristarchus said: Lloyd had dedicated a topic to CC's research in a new NIMI thread. However, this topic was started Oct 15th, and Lloyd started his new thread on Nov 2nd. The latter is where the above questions and responses from Lloyd and CC belong.

That's a fine How do you do. This thread is about CC's model and the EU model. Ask the moderator if I or we stepped out of line there.

[nick c]

Aristarchus, Nick et al, are you people 100% confident that the EU anode Sun model is correct? If so, that's crazy, because it requires omniscience. 100% confidence requires omniscience. And I'm 99% confident that neither of you is omniscient or close to it. Nor is anyone else around here.

You and Charles apparently did not read my post either that or understand it. I do not need to set a percentage on whether it is true or not. The point I made in my post was that it is a Theory and it has not been falsified, Charles protestations aside. Your discussion about omniscience is just a strawman diversion. Of course, neither I or Aristarchus has claimed omniscience in this matter or any other.

So you have suprathermal electrons streaming away from the Sun, and then, in the vicinity of shock fronts where there are surges in the solar wind, there can be counter-streaming electrons. That isn't a net drift.

Again, you should actually read the post instead of shooting from the hip. I never claimed that it was part of the net drift. Actually we do not know. In fact I emphasized that the net drift has yet to be observed largely because it has not been tested for.

Previously, you wrote (highlight added):

the evidence of electrons streaming toward the Sun should be considerably more robust.And yet those data are conspicuously absent.

The post of electrons moving toward the Sun was in answer to that. I have shown that Ulysses detected electrons moving toward the Sun, your statement was wrong. It is that simple.
We do not know if this is part of the net drift, I never said that it was. Maybe it is or maybe it is not. I was only showing your statement to be incorrect.

[CharlesChandler]

We do not know if this is part of the net drift, I never said that it was. Maybe it is or maybe it is not. I was only showing your statement to be incorrect.

OK, I'll give you that one. But like I said, there are more fundamental problems. Here are my criticisms, from page 3 of this thread. If I give you #1, you still have 2 other questions to answer, and #3, concerning the effectively of a chromospheric DL as a current regulator, is a biach.

And how is Scott wrong?

1. In any electric field, electrons respond far more quickly than +ions, due to their smaller inertial forces. So if the field was like Scott says it is, the +ions wouldn't be flowing out of the Sun -- the electrons would be zipping in from the heliopause. But what we actually see is a steady stream of +ions and electrons away from the Sun, with the electrons moving faster than the +ions within the first 10 AU, and only quasi-neutral particles expanding past 10 AU.

2. Even in weak electric fields, if the resistance is slight, electrons can quickly get accelerated to relativistic velocities. When they do, they generate powerful magnetic fields that pinch the electron streams down into discrete discharge channels. Within these channels, collisions with any remaining +ions knock the ions out of the channels, leaving nothing at all to impede the flow of the electrons. Thus the discharge channels become near perfect conductors. As such, the electron streams will stay consolidated until they get to the anode. If this was how the Sun worked, we would expect for there to be a finite number of discrete discharge channels intersecting with the Sun's surface, like a plasma lamp. These would be impossible to miss, as they would be carrying all of the current. Yet we look in the vicinity of the Sun, and we see none of this.

3. In the excellent conductivity of the plasma, a sustained current requires an amp regulator, or all of the potential will get discharged in an instant. Yet Scott's DL model is unrealistic. He has the photosphere positively charged, and then, in the chromosphere, there is a double-layer, with the positive charge facing inward, and the negative charge facing outward. Repulsion between the inner aspect of that DL and the photosphere is what throttles the current -- only +ions capable of making it past that repulsion get to flow out into the heliosphere. But that begs unanswerable questions:

a) If the DL is exerting electrostatic force on the photosphere to regulate the current, then the photosphere is likewise exerting the exact same force on the DL. So what counters the force being exerted on the DL, to keep it in place? And don't answer that it's gravity, because gravity is no match for the electric force, if the two are pitted against each other.

b) DLs in plasma are temporary, and their life expectancy is a straight function of the resistance, which in the chromosphere will be slight. So what keeps the DLs from recombining?

c) If something did keep the DL organized, +ions escaping from the Sun, getting past the positive layer and then sliding down the potential gradient through the negative layer, would surely recombine with negative charges there. If so, recombination in the outer DL would be the source of the photons that we get from the Sun. In other words, the upper chromosphere would be the photosphere, not the photosphere. And that would be just wrong.

d) Positive ions recombining with electrons in the upper chromosphere would eliminate the charge in that layer, thus eliminating the DL amp regulator.

All in all, it isn't that there is something wrong with Scott's model. I can't find anything that's right about it. All of the structural members are either physically impossible, or the opposite from what is actually observed.

And I'll add another item to the list under #3:

e) For a DL in the chromosphere to be an effective current regulator, it would have to be perfectly stable, never thinning out anywhere around the entire surface of the Sun, or the reduced resistance would allow a surge of current. Yet to think of the chromosphere as perfectly stable is ridiculous -- it's a highly chaotic environment, with prominences, CMEs, coronal loops, coronal rain, coronal holes -- all coming and going rapidly. There is just no way that a DL in that kind of environment could keep the solar output to within 0.1% throughout the entire cycle.

[Aristarchus]

Listen to yourself talk. Voyager detected incoming galactic electrons in the heliopause, "without looking for them". OK. But those same instruments starting collecting data as soon as the satellite got into space. How did they NOT detect such sunward electrons inside of the heliopause? Can the same instruments not detect electrons, because the people at NASA don't expect for them to be there, and then start detecting electrons later, in spite of the fact that nobody at NASA expects for them to be there? That doesn't make any sense.

Besides, if NASA had never deployed instrumentation to detect net electron drifts, they never would have found the heliospheric current sheet.

What Voyager was set to detect was a decrease in the number of "high energy" particles based off the then current theory. However, when the researchers viewed the data from Voyager, it actually found an increase in "high energy" particles. To state that Voyager was not set to detect the incoming galactic electrons is an exercise in word gymnastics.

According to theory, as the magnetic field begins to fluctuate, the number of high-energy cosmic rays should decrease inside the heliosheath — charged cosmic rays entering the solar system should become scattered by the magnetic fluctuations, decreasing the number of detections by Voyager 1. Looking at data through 2010, the researchers actually found the opposite to be true — as the magnetic field became more chaotic, the number of high-energy particles increased.

http://news.discovery.com/space/voyager ... 121030.htm

What the researchers also don't understand is why interstellar material rolls so far out into the heliosheath:

Why does the Anomalous Cosmic Rays spectrum roll out well into the heliosheath?

http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/study/scien ... SotGLE.pdf

As for when Voyager was supposed to be detecting the "electrons" depends on the mission details of Voyager at each stage of its journey. You're putting the cart before the horse. What Voyager was meant to detect outside the confines of the solar system was contrary to what it was expected to find. What Scott is stating in his paper proposes and submits a set of research requirements to accommodate the new findings:

At the time Juergens made his calculation (1979), current estimates of the state of ionization of the interstellar gas were that there should be at least 100,000 free electrons per cubic m. But in light of the new update (see #2 above), this is now increased 100 fold to 107/m3. The random electric current of these electrons would be Ir = Nev where N is the electron density per cubic meter, e is the electron charge in coulombs, and v is the average velocity of the electrons (in m/s).

This calculation makes it clear that it is not reasonable to conclude that there are not enough electrons entering the Sun’s environment to power it. In fact, in light of the new NASA data, it is now possible to reduce our estimate of the Sun’s voltage to ~ 1010/16,000 = 0.5 million volts = 500 kV which, relatively speaking, is not extremely large. There are commercial transmission lines here on Earth using higher voltages6.

[Lloyd]

You and Charles apparently did not read my post either that or understand it. I do not need to set a percentage on whether it is true or not. The point I made in my post was that it is a Theory and it has not been falsified, Charles protestations aside. Your discussion about omniscience is just a strawman diversion. Of course, neither I or Aristarchus has claimed omniscience in this matter or any other.
[] The post of electrons moving toward the Sun was in answer to that. I have shown that Ulysses detected electrons moving toward the Sun, your statement was wrong. It is that simple. We do not know if this is part of the net drift, I never said that it was. Maybe it is or maybe it is not. I was only showing your statement to be incorrect.

I also didn't say you guys think you're omniscient. I said if you have 100% confidence in a theory, that's crazy, because it requires omniscience to realistically have 100% confidence in something. Most or many EU supporters seem to have way too much confidence without nearly enough open-mindedness.

Do you have data on the Ulysses spacecraft findings or a link to it? I assume that Ulysses was fairly near one or both poles of the Sun. The height above the Sun, the latitude, the duration of the detection, the strength, the direction/s of movement of the electron stream would be interesting to know. It would be good to have any info like that which CC's model hasn't yet considered. I don't think his model has considered the torus around the Sun and the cause of it, at least I don't remember reading about it there.

Objective Method

As I said on another thread, Ralph Juergens had a good method for comparing theories, by listing the various features of a phenomenon and then estimating how well each theory accounts for each feature.

We could try that method here. Juergens used the method to compare theories about the rilles on the Moon and it was easy to see from the resulting table he made that electric discharge explained all of the features well, while the other theories were only compatible with some of the features and were contradicted by many features.

Here's where I discussed that before and posted Juergens' table: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 180#p93582

[CharlesChandler]

As for when Voyager was supposed to be detecting the "electrons" depends on the mission details of Voyager at each stage of its journey.

OK, so show me that the instruments that would have detected sunward electrons weren't switched on until Voyager got into the heliopause. If you can do that, then you can say that there is a gap in the data, leaving room for speculation as to what the instruments would have detected inside the heliopause.

As I said on another thread, Ralph Juergens had a good method for comparing theories, by listing the various features of a phenomenon and then estimating how well each theory accounts for each feature.

In order for that to be worth anything at all, people would have to be willing to objectively scrutinize each item. Then you can estimate the performance of each model, as the sum of the performances on each item. But as long as people are only seeing what they want to see, you'll never get to that point. I have asked some tough questions about Scott's model, and I haven't gotten answers. I have been asking such questions for years now. I don't see any evidence that anybody other than you is even realizing the significance of the questions. Everybody else is just playing the game of saying that there aren't enough data to falsify Scott's model, so it's still an open issue. In other words, they have a pre-formed conclusion, and as long as there is a way of clinging to it, they will. So when somebody starts asking tough questions, somebody doesn't get any direct responses. So make a list of all of the issues, and show the performance of each model on those issues, side-by-side. If there is anything at all on that list that affords the possibility that Scott's model could still work, they'll fixate on that, and never see any of the rest of it.

My list got to be so long that it was no longer manageable in a single document, which is why I'm using QDL to break it down into individual assertions, criticisms, and rebuttals, in documents that branch off of each other. Then you can follow the logic all of the way through. As best as I can tell, Scott's model ends with unanswerable questions. At the very least, nobody is making an attempt to answer them.

[David]

Its been shown beyond doubt that to arrive at the stardard version requires a total trashing and misrepresentation of Scwhartzchilds original work on Einsteins field equations that these fallicies are fraudulently derived from.

There has been only a very “minor” modification made to Schwarzschild’s original 1916 solution.

Schwarzschild’s solution found two singularities; one at the origin, and one at the Schwarzschild radius. Nearly a century later, it is now believed that the singularity at the Schwarzschild radius is not a genuine physical singularity, but instead an event horizon.

Now I wouldn’t exactly call that “a total trashing and misrepresentation of Schwarzschild's original work”; it's simply a more exact definition of what it means for a Lorentzian manifold to be singular.

[nick c]

David, Kiwi,
I have received several complaints that the above post is off topic. I have to agree, it really does not fit into this thread.
If you wish to discuss Crothers and/or Schwarzchild's work you are welcome to open another thread as I am sure it would make for an interesting discussion.

[Lloyd]

Comparison of Models

CC said: My list [of model comparisons?] got to be so long that it was no longer manageable in a single document, which is why I'm using QDL to break it down into individual assertions, criticisms, and rebuttals, in documents that branch off of each other.

I'd like to have the link to that again, if you have it handy.

CC Model Questions
CC commented on star formation implosion at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 95#p101261. And I asked a bunch of questions about details at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 07#p101307. Not that the questions have to be answered.

[CharlesChandler]

CC said: My list [of model comparisons?] got to be so long that it was no longer manageable in a single document, which is why I'm using QDL to break it down into individual assertions, criticisms, and rebuttals, in documents that branch off of each other.

I'd like to have the link to that again, if you have it handy.

The old document, such as it was, is here:

Tabular Comparison of Solar Models

The new documents are to be found in folders under this heading:

QDL / Topics / Science / Astronomy

Time permitting, I'm identifying the salient observations, and the hypotheses that address them, and the criticisms thereof, and in some cases, the rebuttals.

And I asked a bunch of questions about details at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 07#p101307. Not that the questions have to be answered.

No, I'm committed to answering questions -- it's just that I'm in the middle of about 6 different projects right now, and between that and maintaining responsiveness on the threads already started, I just haven't gotten to it.

[Sparky]

Charles, you are wasting time and effort in this thread. Lloyd will follow you with his mega book of questions, wherever you go, but more intellect is being expressed in
"The Solar Circuit (Back to Basics)" . And you maybe would find more fodder for your own theory, from what is being expressed there!

[David]

David, Kiwi,
I have received several complaints that the above post is off topic. I have to agree, it really does not fit into this thread.

I apologize if my comment was off topic; I was only responding to a previous comment made earlier in this thread.

But now that you mention it, what *is* the exact topic of this thread? The title indicates there is a debate going on. But what are the two sides specifically debating? The comments are all over the map.

Can someone please give a brief synopsis of the dispute? Or at least provide something a little more informative than “Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler”.