Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

[nick c]

Any hypothetical electric input must then provide a power of 4x1026 watts. Juergens posited that the Sun's cathode drop is of the order of 1010 volts. In that event, the total power input divided by that voltage is 4x1016 amperes. The velocity of the interstellar winds is estimated5 at 200 – 1000 km/s. This is in the range 2x105 and 106 m/s. So let us suppose that the effective velocity of a typical interstellar electron is at least 105 m/s.

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).

http://electric-cosmos.org/SolarElecFlux2013.pdf

In the interest of clarity, exponents in the above quote were copied and pasted incorrectly....

4x1026 watts should be 4x1026 watts

4x1016 amperes should be 4x1016amperes

1010 volts should be 1010 volts

107/m3 should be 107/m3

also in the next quote:

1010/16,000 = 0.5 million volts = 500 kV .....should be... 1010/16,000 = 0.5 million volts = 500 kV

[Aristarchus]

Yeah, well, I was feeling lazy, since I'm working in the library tonight at the college and assisting people with other research. I didn't want to do all the superscript, plus I'm viewing basketball scores. It's the second time I gave the link on this topic, so I figured the scholars here would figure it out when simply clicking the link. It's not a long paper.

[CharlesChandler]

CC said: Basically, Scott's PNP configuration in the photosphere and chromosphere just isn't going to work. Does that matter?

Since you mentioned it, you ought to provide a few more details, so readers understand your doubts, if you have the time. Like which layers do Scott identify with P, N, and P (pos, neg, pos)? And why can't they work?

I most recently posted a list of issues with Scott's model here:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 10#p101284

Before going into more detail, first somebody will have to make a passing attempt at defending Scott's model.

Why is your PNPNP model better?

It works.

[CharlesChandler]

A ‘tipping point’ in science is supposed to happen when the weight of evidence against a theory tips the balance of opinion against it. But we are dazzled in this space age by computer-generated ‘virtual reality’ and the sheer technological brilliance of applied science. So it can come as a surprise to be told that modern theoretical science is in crisis. Today’s inverted science pyramid rests on the mathematics of imaginary particles and energy described by an a causal quantum theory that no one can explain.

Yes, but to have anything more than a false dichotomy, you'll have to come up with some evidence FOR your model, not just evidence against the existing model. The last time I checked, the EU thinks that it's safe, as long as there aren't enough data to incontrovertibly disprove it (i.e., argumentum ad ignorantiam). But there are issues with various EU models that cannot be defended just with the argument of ignorance -- yet these issues haven't been addressed. As a matter of fact, there isn't any responsiveness at all from the principle EU proponents. Dancing in the shadows isn't going to make you a star. When problems are identified with proposed models, they have to be addressed. But when the proposals haven't changed in 10 years, and the proponents aren't even responding to questions, that isn't a brave new paradigm -- that's a dead end.

[CharlesChandler]

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). Using these values, we find that

Ir = Nev
= 107 electrons x 1.6x10-19 Coulombs/electron x 105 m/s

so the random electric current density is about 1.6x10-7 Amp per square meter through a surface
oriented at any angle.

The total electron current that can be drawn by the solar discharge is the product of this random
current density and the surface area of the sphere occupied by the cathode drop.

That's a neat trick -- you just use the "random electric current" in space to light up the Sun.

Uh-oh, if he's going to turn on the "random electric current", then the Earth will start shining just as brightly as the Sun, since it has the same current density as everything else in the solar system, as he has shown.

And he's right when he later says that 500 kV isn't a very powerful E-field (when distributed over a sufficient distance). Thunderstorms here on Earth have fields in excess of 100 MV over a distance of 10 km (i.e., 10 kV/m). So thunderstorms should shine brighter than the Sun, even in-between lightning strikes. Uh-oh...



On page #3 of the referenced paper, he shows a diagram of random electron motions. Yes, those might be moving at 105 m/s. But that doesn't mean that the net drift velocity is that. The net drift velocity is 0 from Brownian motion.

Ir = Nev
= 107 electrons x 1.6x10-19 Coulombs/electron x 0 m/s
= 0 amps

So that's why in-between lightning strikes, thunderstorms don't shine brighter than the Sun. (phew!)

[Aristarchus]

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.

You just make this up as you go along, don't you?

Where do you concede the consensus science and when do you reject it in your Sci-Fi?

Although the solar wind ions are travelling at the same velocity as the electrons, they have a larger mass than the electrons. This gives them a greater momentum, which is created from an object's mass and velocity. Therefore, the solar wind ions are able to transfer more of the necessary momentum to the newly formed atmospheric ions themselves, providing them with more energy to escape.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/mav ... FqsnzTF-XU

Then you do a hit and run on Scott, and try to pronounce it as something new, but you're trying to deceive through an appeal to authority. CC, I'm still withholding what I know you're trying to to do. In due time. You're a NASA shill. I'm very patient. Hint: the paradigm is broken, and you're trying to introduce an EU model that comports with the consensus science to save face. More on this later. This CC dude doesn't even offer links, he has pictures - and calculations - problem is, none of it reflects scientific reality. CC is selling an elixir. And not very well.

[Aristarchus]

My argument is that when you use consensus science to extrapolate on a new model, one is only seeking new theories to manufacture the old existing paradigm. Because we have reached physics in this day-and-age that is simply theoretical, or what is termed as scientism, the existing scientific paradigms comport with the cultural understanding of the times. However, when observations begin to challenge scientific predictions for the old paradigm, there are other paradigms ready to replace the existing model. What the EU brings to the table is old discoveries that were washed out due to the introduction of heavily weighted mathematical constructs to theories born out of cultural constructs. You can apply mathematical metrics, but if the observations infer from the pre-existing paradigm, then the archaic reductionism returns.

This is where I have a problem with CC's model, because it does not consider a new paradigm holistically. From the Evolution of Civilizations by Carroll Quigley:

No scientist ever believes that he has the final answer or the ultimate truth on anything. ~ Chapter 1, Scientific Method and the Social Sciences, p. 34.

It is not easy to tear any event out of the context of the universe in which it occurred without detaching from it some factor that influenced it. ~ Chapter 1, Scientific Method and the Social Sciences, p. 35

Even today few scientists and perhaps even fewer nonscientists realize that science is a method and nothing else. ~ Chapter 1, Scientific Method and the Social Sciences, p. 40

Closely related to the erroneous idea that science is a body of knowledge is the equally erroneous idea that scientific theories are true. ~ Chapter 1, Scientific Method and the Social Sciences, p. 40

[Aristarchus]

What it means?

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-sun-verified/

The meter-wide, hexagonal IBEX monitors the edge of the solar system from Earth orbit by “seeing” the heliosphere’s outer boundary in the “light” of energetic neutral hydrogen atoms (ENA’s). The news releases of October 15 highlighted the difficulties this discovery causes. “The thing that’s really shocking is this ribbon,” says IBEX principal investigator David McComas of Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. Researchers had expected gusts in the solar wind blowing against the boundary to create 20% or 30% variations in ENA emissions, but the ribbon is 10 times that intense—a narrow band blazing across the sky like some Milky Way on fire. Charged particles have apparently become bunched along the ribbon near the boundary, says McComas, but how they got there “is still a big mystery. Our previous ideas about the outer heliosphere are going to have to be revised.” “I’m blown away completely,” says space physicist Neil Murphy of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. “It’s amazing, it’s opened up a new kind of astronomy.”

Meanwhile, in 2005 I explained all three rings of supernova 1987Ain terms of a stellar plasma Z-pinch. Above we see the essential features of a plasma Z-pinch experiment (left); the details of the concentric Birkeland current filament cylinders (center); and the ‘witness plate’ resulting from the galactic Birkeland current filaments in that cylinder striking the matter in the disk expelled from the star at the focus of supernova 1987A. The bright beads are like the effect of a ring of searchlights punching through a thin cloud. The tendency for pairing of the bright circular spots and the extremely slow expansion rate of the equatorial ring suggest the Z-pinch model is correct.

A normal star will have the same Z-pinch environment as a supernova but at a much lower energy. So instead of a brilliant ring of lights in the sky, astronomers detect a ‘bright ribbon’ of ENA’s, caused by modest excitation of matter from the Sun’s stellar “wind” by the local galactic Z-pinch.

[CharlesChandler]

My argument is that when you use consensus science to extrapolate on a new model, one is only seeking new theories to manufacture the old existing paradigm.

I still haven't figured out how you got my categorized as using consensus science. I dismiss QM, GR, and anything based on them. And all of my work is based on the electric force dominating the macroscopic realm. How is that "consensus science"?

[Frantic]

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.

You just make this up as you go along, don't you?

Where do you concede the consensus science and when do you reject it in your Sci-Fi?

Although the solar wind ions are travelling at the same velocity as the electrons, they have a larger mass than the electrons. This gives them a greater momentum, which is created from an object's mass and velocity. Therefore, the solar wind ions are able to transfer more of the necessary momentum to the newly formed atmospheric ions themselves, providing them with more energy to escape.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/mav ... FqsnzTF-XU

Then you do a hit and run on Scott, and try to pronounce it as something new, but you're trying to deceive through an appeal to authority. CC, I'm still withholding what I know you're trying to to do. In due time. You're a NASA shill. I'm very patient. Hint: the paradigm is broken, and you're trying to introduce an EU model that comports with the consensus science to save face. More on this later. This CC dude doesn't even offer links, he has pictures - and calculations - problem is, none of it reflects scientific reality. CC is selling an elixir. And not very well.

Seems if he proposes new science you reject it, if he builds off of another's science you have a problem with that too. His only option it seems is to fall in line? You resort to calling him a NASA shill. If CC is selling an elixir that's fine, he thinks it works. You are dealing straight poison that no one wanted. The debate is over. Guess who won?

[Aristarchus]

Seems if he proposes new science you reject it, if he builds off of another's science you have a problem with that too. His only option it seems is to fall in line? You resort to calling him a NASA shill. If CC is selling an elixir that's fine, he thinks it works. You are dealing straight poison that no one wanted. The debate is over. Guess who won?

Who won? Is this about science or winning a door prize at a drunken frat party? You guys really need to stop this whack-the-mole game. I mean, it's my favorite hobby, but you can go blind and grow hairy palms from it. Anyways, it's not about winning. Why did you bother to quote me without addressing the issues I raised? Did you miss this part I quoted: No scientist ever believes that he has the final answer or the ultimate truth on anything. ~ Chapter 1, Scientific Method and the Social Sciences, p. 34.

I know that since you can't respond to what I posited directly that you wish to place me on the defensive. Good luck with that. Claim victory all you want. I do no such thing. I address the issues of the EU model, and find CC's model a mish-mash of a reductionist. Go to the thread that Lloyd dedicated to him. I've read it, and see it as a continuation of CC's hamster wheel. In the meantime, I will set about exposing CC as a a NASA shill. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You don't get to come here and ridicule without facing the same onslaught. Suck it up, and learn to take it. You only quote me an attempt to bury what I posited. Go feed on the spoon that Lloyd provided. This is the same Lloyd that accused me of being 100% sure and equating this with omniscience, and then he tried to back peddle from that. It was rather sad reading how he didn't equate 100% with omniscience - and tried to play off that he never related it as a synonym. Perhaps, he will re-edit it, but he's done with me since he sulked off just because I was at the liberty of becoming frustrated with his word games. Kind of like where Lloyd tries to state he believe in CC's model 70 - 80 percent, and the EU 40 percent. Hhmm. Isn't that 110 - 120 percent? Can I do a pie chart with that? Oh well, I was never too good in the math department, thus I preferred staring at walls for fours hours a day while school was in session.

Funny, isn't it. CC and Lloyd have been posted ad nauseam on CC's model on the Thunderbolt thread, but it was only after challenged when CC took the bait and then afterwards Lloyd dedicated a thread to CC's model. Actually, I haven't won anything, but I accomplished what I set out to do here. I don't need validation, but I recognize bull$htye when I read it. Leave me alone here to respond as my leisure. I've done the advanced research, but I do have a life.

Drop a line when you get a chance on what I actually posted, or else seek the promise land of material that CC is offering on Lloyd's thread. In matters not one iota to me. BTW, I think you're a NASA shill, as well.

[Aristarchus]

Oh, BTW, Frantic in a panic, if I reject CC's model? How do explain CC rejecting what Voyager 1 & 2 found regarding the heliosheath? Do I detect a bit of obfuscation on your part in the manner of psychologically projecting? Or did you not read the thread with due diligence?

[Aristarchus]

If CC is selling an elixir that's fine, he thinks it works.

Classic. An oxymoron, but logical in a Through the Looking Glass way.

[Aristarchus]

On page #3 of the referenced paper, he shows a diagram of random electron motions. Yes, those might be moving at 105 m/s. But that doesn't mean that the net drift velocity is that. The net drift velocity is 0 from Brownian motion.

Scott just doesn't just show a diagram, he explains it with text. Why didn't you mention that? Let's look at the text, shall we - and pay heed to my bold emphasis?

Plasmas have what is called the “plasma frequency”. Even after an electron is freed om an atom (producing an ionized on/electron pair) that electron tends to oscillate around the +ion at a certain frequency. The electron is free to drift away from the ionic center, but often continues to dance around it until it jumps over to the vicinity of another ion. Visualize a set of 20,000 (ionized) ion/electron pairs in a plasma where only one of them at a time jumps (drifts) to a neighboring ion. The vast sea of dancing (in Brownian motion) electrons easily camouflages the drift motion of one out of 20,000 electrons. That is why the criticism of the Juergens ES model that says, “We only see equal numbers of ions and electrons moving in the solar wind.” Is not a valid one.

You see the word games CC is playing here? No? Let me explain. Scott explains that the drift motion is one out of every 20,000 electrons. OK. Let's go back to Velikovsky. Suppose that the atom is a kind of solar system, or some kind of Mandelbrot set with repeating forms executing through spin, and occasionally, an electron jumps due to either absorbing or releasing energy. Now suppose that the electron represents a planet. It's the same system, accept there is no particle, because everything manifests through spin, it's a wave, i.e., a verb, instead of a noun. Everything is in motion, and one must measure that in intervals, although not predicated to prediction. However, as Velikovsky noted, you won't read in a daily newspaper that a planet suddenly absorbed or released energy to such an extent as to drop/jump orbit to conflict with another planet of the solar system at whole, because the measurement of a 75-life-year span will not live to witness this jump of a planet. You would have to measure the solar energy over 1,000 to 3000 years. I'll explain more of this later.

For the purpose of this post, CC states the "net" drift. Scott didn't state "net." Scott stated 'drift motion." "OK. What is the interval of the "net?" How far does it encompass? What is the space in between? What is the time lapse? It's a net. A net sum. What does that mean? CC would have to measure his model after 1,000 - 3,000 years. He can't simply compartmentalize it. This is why CC must insist upon a electrostatic process. What is the definition of static?

pertaining to or characterized by a fixed or stationary condition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/static

The process appears static, only for our lust for a unified theory. It give us comfort that knowledge can save us materialistically. Regardless, there is a reset button, and the solar system did not go to sleep tonight as it did ages ago, as witnessed in the sky through the writings of the ancient. If you don't see the true vision of the EU model that combines Scott, Thornhill, and Talbot, what you are expressing is but brief glimpses in time, a composite at best, and at worst, a lie.

[antosarai]

If you don't see the true vision of the EU model that combines Scott, Thornhill, and Talbot, what you are expressing is but brief glimpses in time, a composite at best, and at worst, a lie.

Uh... Dogma? Revelation?

Science turning into preaching?