Debunking Dave

[Michael Mozina]

Eugene pointed me to Alfven's guidelines for scaling solar phenomena to laboartory models, so in what follows, I have taken account of that. It doesn't resolve the mismatch between the models and the solar corona.

That's just nonsense Higgsy. There is no "mismatch" with the corona, and it's not required for the entire corona to be as 'hot' as the coronal loops which traverse them.

Secondly, I was originally commenting specifically on how poor a model for the Sun the SAFIRE experiment, so that's what I shall concentrate on, although much of it also applies to Birkeland's terella.

Great since I prefer Birkeland's cathode model, but even SAFIRE was able to produce an atmosphere around the entire sphere which was hotter than the surface, something your entire industry cannot seem to manage with "magnetic reconnection". You keep sidestepping my difficult questions, like why you're peddling a concept that Alfven called "pseudoscience", and why your entire industry has yet to generate even *basic* atmospheric phenomenon, like *sustained* aurora, and coronas? Your whole industry is a full *century* behind Birkeland and his team *and counting*. Why are you folks so lame in the lab with respect to basic astronomical observation simulations?

Your comment doesn't address the issue that to model the plasma, the temperature (mean particle energy) should be the same.

This is also entirely false. In various current carrying scenarios, the temperature of the electrons can exceed the ions by entire orders of magnitude.

But still, as Eugene pointed out, the density of the gas in the model should scale as L^-1. Across the transition region of the sun, from 1000 to afew thousand km above the photosphere, the number density is 10^14 /cubic cm to 10^9/cubic cm which, if properly modelled would give model densities of 10^23 /cubic cm to 10^18/cubic cm for correct scaling, and this (taking the temperature in the model chamber into account with respect to 20C) is roughly about 0.01 atm to 1000 atm, far away from the actual model pressures.

First of all I have very little faith in mainstream density estimates of the sun's atmosphere, so that's not even a serious consideration from my perspective. Secondly, it's simply a scaling issue that is of very little consequence in the final analysis. You folks cannot even generate *simple* features of the solar atmosphere, like a full sphere *hotter* (than the surface), coronal loops, polar jets, sustained solar wind, etc, things Birkeland accomplished in the lab more than a full *century* ago based on circuit theory. Either your entire industry is collectively inept in the lab, or your barking up the wrong pseudo-scientific tree as Alfven suggested.

My opinion doesn't matter to this question.

It matters with respect to answering your question. The amount of current required is critical to answering your question.

In the electric Sun model(s), how is it powered, what is the process, and what do we observe?

Don't you already know all this? Am I just wasting my breath or what? Have you read Birkeland's work and/or Alfven's work for yourself yet? You'd already know how both of them expect the sun to be "powered" if you'd read their work for yourself. I have no idea how Juergen's expected to power his anode model, but there's nothing intrinsic about the amount of power an anode model might generate internally, or in it's upper atmosphere.

That's not for me to answer, but the proponents of the model(s). In any case, the output has to be 10^26W of radiant power.

Both Birkeland's cathode model and Alfven's homopolar generator model were powered *internally*. I'm not even required to deviate from the standard solar power process to embrace either of those models, and nothing precludes me from embracing (or at least discussing) an internally powered anode model either.

Again - you tell me.

Why is that even necessary in the first place? If you're curious enough about this subject to play the role of 'skeptic', I'd expect you to already at least understand the various models.

This has all come about because I was responding to someone else's claim that "SAFIRE is the one and ONLY completely viable experimentally proven formation of a Star". You then asked me to say "in what *important* ways does it resemble the sun", and I'm pointing out that it doesn't. At all.

But that is a *blatantly* false statement. SAFIRE *easily* produced a working solar atmosphere which was *hotter* than it's surrounding environment, and covered the whole sphere. That's a feat your entire industry has yet to achieve with your beloved "magnetic reconnection" models.

The only way to really know if their model is viable and/or "correct' is to measure all the particle flow patterns around their sphere and compare them to satellite data.

So the answer is no. You don't have such a quantified model

If the mainstream model is "quantified", then yes, such a quantified model exists for all three possible primary solar models. Fusion isn't the exclusive domain of the mainstream solar model Higgsy.

Yes I have read it. However, you are right and I am wrong and there is an extended discussion about the processes in the Sun in those pages of the book.

There's also a lot of math related to particle flow patterns *around* the sun too. Did you see those calculations?

I overlooked it, and the claims I made about him not using the terella for studying solar features and not studying the Sun much were wrong. I have no defence other than to say that I was concentrating when reading the book a few years ago on his work on the terrestrial aurora.

You did what every astronomer I have ever met has done. You didn't really attempt to study his *whole* body of work. That's the problem with your industry in a nutshell. Had you read his whole book, and studied it carefully, none of your questions would even be required. You'd already have all your answers.

I give you the latter (planetary aurora). You'll have to justify the former (solar corona),

It's been 'justified' for more than a full century based on *experimental* data and the comparison of that data to real world in situ measurements, including satellite measurements from space. Birkeland was the first solar physicist to predict that *both* types of particles flowed from the sun, that cathode rays (electron beams) came from the sun, polar jets, coronal loops, etc.

You can't even generate and *sustain* a high temperature corona to begin with! Your industry is already a *full century* behind Birkeland in the lab *and counting*.

as we have seen that these physical models do not scale well to solar conditions;

You have shown *nothing* of the sort, and you're dragging your feet kicking and screaming.

but then Birkeland's work pre-dated Alfven's by a long time, so he wasn't to know that.

Actually Alfven confirmed that plasma *does* scale very nicely and he applied circuit theory to every problem where the mainstream uses what Alfven called 'pseudoscience', and "magnetic reconnection" is a complete dud in the lab with respect to solar physics.

Neither experiment, SAFIRE nor Birkeland's terrella, are good models for the Sun overall, lacking in many important solar features and being improperly scaled.

That is *complete* baloney. Birkeland even specifically "scaled" his work with respect to the voltages he expected to see, etc. Birkeland put it at around 600 million volts, whereas Alfven had it closer to a billion volts. Birkeland specifically expected it to scale perfectly, and Alfven's works shows that it does scale perfectly, and demonstrates that circuit theory is superior to MHD theory in explaining high energy plasma like we see in the solar atmosphere.

What exactly do you think today's solar physicists should learn about what solar features from Birkeland's terrella?

How it works for starters. I doubt that any of them have read Birkeland's work carefully for themselves. That's what they should do IMO.

[Michael Mozina]

It's worth noting that in a *current carrying* environment, we end up with "plasma threading" going on, with densely packed filaments flowing through a relatively thin "atmosphere" around them.

Generally a good point, but this is not the case in the solar wind. It indeed may be represented as a bunch of flux tubes rather than a homogeneous "atmosphere", yet the tubes are indeed "densely packed" - but with respect to each other (some studies suggest that they map onto photospheric granules), meaning there is no "free" space in between them at all.

I don't think that I can buy that concept based on satellite imagery, but I will grant you that there are a whole lot of those tubes along the surface. As you move upwards into the solar atmosphere however, only the largest tubes (magnetic ropes) get that big to start with, and they typically connect to somewhere back on the surface like their smaller counterparts. I'm sure that some currents flow out into space as well, but I'm not convinced you can model the process based on no free space at all. Furthermore the amount of current flowing though the loop will dictate it's temperature and SDO images confirm that it's not a homogeneous environment with respect to temperature.

We also see confirmation of Birkeland's prediction of "cathode rays"/aka electron beams coming from the sun.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sune ... trahl.html

[paladin17]

I don't think that I can buy that concept based on satellite imagery

It's not based on satellite imagery. It's based on the in situ measurements of plasma parameters (first of all, magnetic field strength and direction) around 1 a.u.
The "magnetic switchback" events that PSP has observed at ~ 40 solar radii also pretty much resemble current sheets which should be associated with the "walls" of such flux tubes, though I'm not sure yet it's not something different still.

[Higgsy]

Eugene pointed me to Alfven's guidelines for scaling solar phenomena to laboratory models, so in what follows, I have taken account of that. It doesn't resolve the mismatch between the models and the solar corona.

That's just nonsense Higgsy. There is no "mismatch" with the corona...

That's not what Alfven says.

Your comment doesn't address the issue that to model the plasma, the temperature (mean particle energy) should be the same.

This is also entirely false.

What is false? That the temperature should be the same? If you disagree, take it up with Alfven.

But still, as Eugene pointed out, the density of the gas in the model should scale as L^-1. Across the transition region of the sun, from 1000 to afew thousand km above the photosphere, the number density is 10^14 /cubic cm to 10^9/cubic cm which, if properly modelled would give model densities of 10^23 /cubic cm to 10^18/cubic cm for correct scaling, and this (taking the temperature in the model chamber into account with respect to 20C) is roughly about 0.01 atm to 1000 atm, far away from the actual model pressures.

First of all I have very little faith in mainstream density estimates of the sun's atmosphere, so that's not even a serious consideration from my perspective.

You can't just bin all the results from Fe XII and Fe XIII from Hinode, SUMER and CDS out of hand. These are not estimates, but measurements. Secondly, if you don't know what the density is, how do you design an experiment to model it? Are you suggesting that density doesn't matter in plasma dynamics?

Secondly, it's simply a scaling issue that is of very little consequence in the final analysis.

Take that up with Alfven.

I'll just add one more scaling issue and leave it at that. Time scales as L, so that for dynamical events such as coronal loops and CMEs the time of the phenomenon in the model should be scaled by 10^-9. Coronal loops typically form and dissipate in times between 60 seconds and few days (say 5x10^5s). Within the model therefore, transient events should take between 60ns and 0.5ms, not very near the observed events in either lab model. (See Table 3.2 in Cosmical Electrodynamics).

I think it's pretty clear that, if you take these scaling issues into account, neither laboratory model is a good match for the plasma processes in the actual Sun, especially since both models have a net current flow.

Turning now to the matter of how the Sun is powered, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you accept and the general community of EU advocates accept that the sun is powered by fusion in its core facilitated by the temperatures and pressures resulting from gravitational collapse. If indeed that is your position, then that is fine, and we can discuss what plasma phenomena in the transition zone, chromosphere and corona give rise to the physical observables such as loops, CMEs and the elevated temperature of the corona. However, it is certainly not true of EU proponents in general who seem to believe that the Sun is powered by some galactic current in some ill-defined manner (Cargo, JP Michael and Birgit all making claims of this sort in the last week in this forum). What is the position of the EU principals, people like Juergens, Scott, Thornhill etc.?

Juergens says: "The known characteristics of the interplanetary medium suggest not only that the sun and the planets are electrically charged, but that the sun itself is the focus of a cosmic electric discharge — the probable source of all its radiant energy"

Scott: "The Sun may be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies."

Thornhill: "I agree entirely with your treatment of stars as a part of an electrical circuit rather than self-sustaining, isolated gas spheres. (I pointed out some years ago that the possible oscillatory nature of such circuits may offer a simple explanation for some variable stars and pulsars. The explosive effects are seen in novae and some features on the sun)"

Need I go on? It is obvious that the EU position on the Sun is the "Electric Sun" hypothesis which claims that the Sun is powered electrically and not by fusion. So it might be the case that your particular view of the Sun's structure and source of energy is more like the conventional one, but that is not the case generally in the EU community. If you don't want to defend the EU idea, fine, but don't pretend the EU hypothesis is a gravitationally collapsed Sun producing energy from the nuclear fusion of hydrogen in its core. The reason why SAFIRE was initiated in the first place, was ostensibly to test the hypothesis of the "Electric Sun", and why it has been such an abject failure.

As the "Electric Sun" is such an ill-defined hypothesis, I cannot say what are the particle flows from which it is claimed to derive its energy. I have to rely on the authors of the hypothesis, and they have not been clear on this. But I will say that there cannot be a net charge flow into or out of the Sun over time, and so I await a viable scenario for an electically powered Sun that does not conflict with observation.

[Michael Mozina]

I don't think that I can buy that concept based on satellite imagery

It's not based on satellite imagery. It's based on the in situ measurements of plasma parameters (first of all, magnetic field strength and direction) around 1 a.u.
The "magnetic switchback" events that PSP has observed at ~ 40 solar radii also pretty much resemble current sheets which should be associated with the "walls" of such flux tubes, though I'm not sure yet it's not something different still.

What you are ultimately describing is a flux tube "pattern" where "current" flows in different directions within various tubes/wires. The mainstream simply can wrap it's head around the the concept of an *electro*magnetic atmospheric environment, so it's 'dumbs it down' to magnetism alone without respect to the current fl;ow direction within the tube at the various points in the atmosphere. They won't refer to it as an 'electromagnetic' switchback, just a 'magnetic' one. They attempt to disassociate the the math from the E aspect of Maxwell's equations, and they persist in trying to put the magnetic cart in front on the electrical horse. It's kind of sad that decades after Alfven explained these things to them in terms of circuit theory, the mainstream continues to peddle a belief system that Alfven referred to as "pseudoscience" till the day he died.

[Michael Mozina]

Eugene pointed me to Alfven's guidelines for scaling solar phenomena to laboratory models, so in what follows, I have taken account of that. It doesn't resolve the mismatch between the models and the solar corona.

That's just nonsense Higgsy. There is no "mismatch" with the corona...

That's not what Alfven says.

Well we now know that you didn't read all of Birkeland's work for yourself, so it's hard for me to believe you've read much of Alfven's work for yourself. Have you actually read the book Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven? Yes? No?

Did Alfven describe solar flares and million degree "magnetic flux ropes" in terms of "circuit" theory and explosive double layers, or in terms of "magnetic reconnection"? As simple answer will suffice.

What is false? That the temperature should be the same? If you disagree, take it up with Alfven.

No, Alfven specifically explained that in current carrying environments like 'flux ropes" the electron 'temperatures' could and would routinely exceed ion temperatures by a couple orders of magnitude. Again, I'm inclined to believe that you've not read much of Alfven's work either Higgsy.

You can't just bin all the results from Fe XII and Fe XIII from Hinode, SUMER and CDS out of hand. These are not estimates, but measurements.

I'm not 'binning;" them, I've been studying satellite images and spectral data for many decades. We measure the photon counts from various elemental ionization states from such instruments. The temperature estimates are also applicable to plasma temperatures inside the 'magnetic flux tube', a current carrying "Bennett Pinch" in plasma according to Alfven.

Secondly, if you don't know what the density is, how do you design an experiment to model it?

What makes you think that the whole corona is one homogeneous density and temperature?

I think I'll just skip the 'take it up with Alfven' comments since you don't seem to be very familiar with his work, maybe less familiar than you were with Birkeland's work.

I'll just add one more scaling issue and leave it at that. Time scales as L, so that for dynamical events such as coronal loops and CMEs the time of the phenomenon in the model should be scaled by 10^-9. Coronal loops typically form and dissipate in times between 60 seconds and few days (say 5x10^5s). Within the model therefore, transient events should take between 60ns and 0.5ms, not very near the observed events in either lab model. (See Table 3.2 in Cosmical Electrodynamics).

Um, no, just no.

First of all, the "electric current' that is present in any model is continuous and you can't try to 'scale' coronal loops in terms of raw time in a continuous current carrying environment. Current carrying filaments need not 'dissipate' at rates that you personally predict based on time. In fact 'plasma' has had a long history of defying virtually all of the mathematical models used to describe it.

I think it's pretty clear that, if you take these scaling issues into account, neither laboratory model is a good match for the plasma processes in the actual Sun, especially since both models have a net current flow.

That's just utter nonsense HIggsy.

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

As the saying goes, one good "test" is worth a thousand so called "expert opinions". Birkeland managed to produce a *sustained* planetary aurora, and a *sustained* solar corona, along with the those so called "transient events" (electrical discharges) which we can see occur along the surface of the terella in that simple example of Birkeland's model.

Birkeland took it a (several) step further by putting an electromagnet inside of the solar sphere too, and varying the field over time. He was able to recreate *many* of the features that we observe today in high energy satellite imagery of the sun including SDO imagery, including solar "strahl", polar jets, and high energy discharge events congregated in two 'bands' north and south of the equator as we see throughout the sun's sunspot cycle in high energy images of the sun.

Turning now to the matter of how the Sun is powered, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you accept and the general community of EU advocates accept that the sun is powered by fusion in its core facilitated by the temperatures and pressures resulting from gravitational collapse.

Both Birkeland and Alfven advocated for an internally powered sun, so essentially both of their solar models could work that way. Juergen's model is somewhat more 'flexible' in the sense that Juergen's allowed for an external power source to at least 'partially', potentially completely power the sun. However, there's nothing to prevent anode models from incorporating fusion in and around the outside layers of the sun. In fact Scott and Thornhill have advocated for that position, so some amount of "local fusion" (solar body/atmosphere) must occur. Local fusion processes must play *some* role in 'powering' any modern anode model as well.

I'm personally fine with a mostly internally powered cathode fusion model, albeit a bit different than the one which you seem to imagine.

If indeed that is your position, then that is fine, and we can discuss what plasma phenomena in the transition zone, chromosphere and corona give rise to the physical observables such as loops, CMEs and the elevated temperature of the corona.

The only way to get there is for you to embrace Birkeland's original prediction of a positively charged 'space" surrounding at "cathode" solar surface. Or, you could alternatively embrace an anode solar model, but then you'd have to explain why the vast majority of the cosmic rays which bombard our solar system at the speed of light are overwhelmingly *positively* charged particles, and explain how and why suns emit "cathode rays"/ aka electron beams as Birkeland's cathode model predicts.

Either way you'll end up with a charge separation between the surface of the sun and "space". We can't discuss much unless and until you'll 'go there' in terms of electric fields in space because that's how they all work.

However, it is certainly not true of EU proponents in general who seem to believe that the Sun is powered by some galactic current in some ill-defined manner (Cargo, JP Michael and Birgit all making claims of this sort in the last week in this forum). What is the position of the EU principals, people like Juergens, Scott, Thornhill etc.?

Alfven imagined and described a universe of interwoven circuitry where current flows throughout the cosmos. How and where all that energy is generated is perhaps a good question to ask. I doubt anyone in the EU community would try to suggest that our galaxy and sun are immune from external currents, and changes to those currents over time.

Juergens says: "The known characteristics of the interplanetary medium suggest not only that the sun and the planets are electrically charged, but that the sun itself is the focus of a cosmic electric discharge — the probable source of all its radiant energy"

I'm afraid that Juergen's original model isn't precisely the same model that is championed by anyone alive today in the 'anode' community that I'm aware of. The anode EU community has 'moved on' and grown a bit. Scott and Thornhill predict in their books that fusion occurs near the electrode surface and predict variations in neutrino emissions to track with sunspot activity. At least some of the "power" related to the sun's total power output would necessarily have to occur in those electrode surface fusion events.

One might also conceive of a mostly internally powered anode model with 'some' power being supplied externally, so it's possible for a full 'range' of possible currents to be present in various locations around the solar body at any given time depending on whether one embraces 'any' local amount of solar fusion, including the solar atmosphere.

Scott: "The Sun may be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies."

Thornhill: "I agree entirely with your treatment of stars as a part of an electrical circuit rather than self-sustaining, isolated gas spheres. (I pointed out some years ago that the possible oscillatory nature of such circuits may offer a simple explanation for some variable stars and pulsars. The explosive effects are seen in novae and some features on the sun)"

I think you're taking Scott's statement out of context with the rest of his work. I know Scott predicts surface fusion events.

I tend to agree with Thornhill that no star is an electrical island unto itself, rather each sun electrically interacts with an electrical grid called "space". No disagreement there.

Even I would have to add "something" external to the "power" provided by 'space', if only in the form of high speed cosmic rays which continuously bombard our solar system at nearly the the speed of light, and which are *overwhelmingly* positively charged particles with a lot of inbound kinetic energy.

Need I go on? It is obvious that the EU position on the Sun is the "Electric Sun" hypothesis which claims that the Sun is powered electrically and not by fusion.

Both Scott and Thornhill predict that 'fusion' occurs in and around the surface of the electrode, so you're not accurately describing their beliefs with respect to local solar fusion.

So it might be the case that your particular view of the Sun's structure and source of energy is more like the conventional one, but that is not the case generally in the EU community. If you don't want to defend the EU idea, fine, but don't pretend the EU hypothesis is a gravitationally collapsed Sun producing energy from the nuclear fusion of hydrogen in its core. The reason why SAFIRE was initiated in the first place, was ostensibly to test the hypothesis of the "Electric Sun", and why it has been such an abject failure.

I don't believe that SAFIRE was an abject failure, nor do I intend to defend an anode based solar model. It's a pity IMO that they didn't go on to test the full *range* of Birkeland's original work, including his *cathode* terella experiments.

As the "Electric Sun" is such an ill-defined hypothesis, I cannot say what are the particle flows from which it is claimed to derive its energy. I have to rely on the authors of the hypothesis, and they have not been clear on this. But I will say that there cannot be a net charge flow into or out of the Sun over time, and so I await a viable scenario for an electically powered Sun that does not conflict with observation.

I've read BIrkeland's work for myself, and I tend to believe that he's correct about the charge of the surface of the electrode surface with respect to "space" (cosmic rays). Birkeland also personally championed an internally powered sun based on a "transmutation of elements' inside the sun. I believe that he imagined something more like fission rather than fusion, but neither term existed in the scientific vocabulary yet, and the term "plasma" had not yet been coined to describe the forth state of matter.

Birkeland was *at least* a century ahead of where so called "modern" astronomers are today because astronomers refuse to turn on the electrical switch and see the light.

Here's the deal Higgsy. Astronomers continue to promote a concept which Alfven referred to as pseudoscience throughout his career and lifetime. They do not seem to understand much if anything at all about circuit theory as it applies to events in space, or Alfven's work in general.

A full *century* later, the concept of "magnetic reconnection" has never been used to successfully reproduce a *sustained* planetary aurora, let alone a *sustained full sphere* corona, something which as done more than a century ago by Birkeland and his team based on circuit theory.

Why is your industry more than a century behind circuit theory in terms of demonstrating it's ability to produce sustained high energy plasma events?

Come on Higgsy, answer that question openly and candidly.

[paladin17]

I don't think that I can buy that concept based on satellite imagery

It's not based on satellite imagery. It's based on the in situ measurements of plasma parameters (first of all, magnetic field strength and direction) around 1 a.u.
The "magnetic switchback" events that PSP has observed at ~ 40 solar radii also pretty much resemble current sheets which should be associated with the "walls" of such flux tubes, though I'm not sure yet it's not something different still.

What you are ultimately describing is a flux tube "pattern" where "current" flows in different directions within various tubes/wires. The mainstream simply can wrap it's head around the the concept of an *electro*magnetic atmospheric environment, so it's 'dumbs it down' to magnetism alone without respect to the current fl;ow direction within the tube at the various points in the atmosphere. They won't refer to it as an 'electromagnetic' switchback, just a 'magnetic' one. They attempt to disassociate the the math from the E aspect of Maxwell's equations, and they persist in trying to put the magnetic cart in front on the electrical horse. It's kind of sad that decades after Alfven explained these things to them in terms of circuit theory, the mainstream continues to peddle a belief system that Alfven referred to as "pseudoscience" till the day he died.

Current (circuit) approach and magnetic approach are equally viable in the sense that they both describe [different aspects of] what's happening. We use magnetic description of the phenomena in the solar wind simply because we have no idea what the circuit that generates the solar magnetic field looks like. Even currents in space, as you can easily see, are derived through magnetometer readings - there's simply no tool for measuring the currents directly. So you have to work with whatever you can actually detect. E.g. "bow shock" in the Earth's magnetosphere is a current sheet, but you can only measure the difference in magnetic field and other plasma parameters (velocity, density etc.), and not the current itself.

[Michael Mozina]

I don't think that I can buy that concept based on satellite imagery

It's not based on satellite imagery. It's based on the in situ measurements of plasma parameters (first of all, magnetic field strength and direction) around 1 a.u.
The "magnetic switchback" events that PSP has observed at ~ 40 solar radii also pretty much resemble current sheets which should be associated with the "walls" of such flux tubes, though I'm not sure yet it's not something different still.

What you are ultimately describing is a flux tube "pattern" where "current" flows in different directions within various tubes/wires. The mainstream simply can wrap it's head around the the concept of an *electro*magnetic atmospheric environment, so it's 'dumbs it down' to magnetism alone without respect to the current fl;ow direction within the tube at the various points in the atmosphere. They won't refer to it as an 'electromagnetic' switchback, just a 'magnetic' one. They attempt to disassociate the the math from the E aspect of Maxwell's equations, and they persist in trying to put the magnetic cart in front on the electrical horse. It's kind of sad that decades after Alfven explained these things to them in terms of circuit theory, the mainstream continues to peddle a belief system that Alfven referred to as "pseudoscience" till the day he died.

Current (circuit) approach and magnetic approach are equally viable in the sense that they both describe [different aspects of] what's happening. We use magnetic description of the phenomena in the solar wind simply because we have no idea what the circuit that generates the solar magnetic field looks like. Even currents in space, as you can easily see, are derived through magnetometer readings - there's simply no tool for measuring the currents directly. So you have to work with whatever you can actually detect. E.g. "bow shock" in the Earth's magnetosphere is a current sheet, but you can only measure the difference in magnetic field and other plasma parameters (velocity, density etc.), and not the current itself.

The circuit and magnetic field approach are not equally viable when describing *high energy long duration* events in plasma however. While it's possible to transfer some amount of "stored" magnetic field energy into particle movement, whether you call it induction (it's proper scientific name) or one calls it "magnetic reconnection", the *duration* of such high energy "release "events are quite short. To heat and *sustain* plasma at million degree temperatures requires sustained electric fields and continuous electrical current.

That's the mainstream problem in a nutshell. They refuse to embrace electricity and electrical fields in space even when it's *absolutely necessary* to understand the process properly. Cosmic rays from space are *overwhelmingly* positively charged, they move through the cosmos at the speed of light, and they pack a huge kinetic energy punch as they slam into things, and into our solar system. One cannot simply ignore the electrical aspects of "space" and begin to actually understand how "space" operates. Space itself is electrically 'charged'.

Look at a single solar coronal loop for example. It might reach millions or even tens of millions of degrees, and it might persist for *days* on end as it flows through the solar atmosphere. That's a sure and obvious sign of an *electrical* process in plasma, complete with electric fields and electrical current. Everywhere and every single instance that Alfven used circuit theory to explain high energy events in space, the mainstream still tries to apply a scientific concept that Alfven called "pseudoscience". They aren't equal ways of approaching the same problem at the level of actual *empirical laboratory physics*, even if they are equal in terms of solving them in Maxwell's equations. Electric fields are *required* to explain a full sphere hot corona around the sun. It's not 'optional'. That's why the mainstream is already a century behind circuit theory and counting with respect to producing *working* simulations of a full sphere solar corona and a planetary aurora.

You're absolutely right about the fact that we can only easily measure the magnetic fields and the 'implied' electrical fields. That works fine as long as one 'accepts' the electrical fields that are responsible for current flows, but astronomers are downright afraid of discussing electric fields in space, in spite of the fact that 'space" is bombarding us at light speed with highly charged particles which are *overwhelmingly* positively charged.

[Cargo]

Sorry if I'm trying to hard. I would only adjust this thought slightly.

electrical currents are responsible for fields, but astronomers are downright afraid of discussing electric currents or fields in space, in spite of the fact that 'space" is bombarding us at light speed with highly charged particles which are *overwhelmingly* positively charged and represent a current/field.

[Higgsy]

I think I'll just skip the 'take it up with Alfven' comments

Your head's in the sand. I think it's quite clear that these lab experiments (Birkeland, SAFIRE, Leicester University) can show some superficial and qualitative aspects of some steady state phenomena, specifically planetary aurora, but that in general their scaling is woefully incorrect for modelling solar phenomena as Alfven quite clearly states in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 of Cosmical Electrodynamics. Section 3.12 of that work focuses on the required similarity transformations to properly scale plasma phenomena from nature to the laboartory. (Thanks to Eugene again for pointing this out to me).

It is abundantly clear that, if quantitative modelling of plasma effects is what you're after, the experiments above fail in many dimensions: time, temperature, total current, total potential, electric and magnetic field, density, current density. In the models, time of transient events is too long, the temperatures are too low by a factor of about 1000, the product of total current and potential (power generated by resistive heating) are off by a factor of 10^23 if we're talking about an electric Sun model, or by some less but still large factor if we are talking about a fusion powered Sun, the magnetic fields are either absent or too low by factors of tens of billions (the magnetic field in the corona is 0.1G at 4 Sun radii up to 10G at 1 solar radius; and as high as 350G in coronal loops, and magnetic field scales as x^-1), the density is too low by about a factor of 1000 (see my previous post), the electron current density is too low by a factor of about 10^16 (current density scales as x^-2, so by 10^18 and the electron flux at 1 AU is about 3x10^12 m^-2 s^-1 giving an electron current density at the Sun of ~22mA m^-2), and the nett current density is too high (should be zero).

On top of all that there is an absence of a central gravitational field and there is a net current not observed in the case of the Sun.

It's crystal clear that these lab models might show some superficial and qualitative aspects of solar plasma behaviour (and in the case of SAFIRE and the Leicester Uni models not even that), but they are not good models of solar plasma dynamics.

First of all, the "electric current' that is present in any model is continuous and you can't try to 'scale' coronal loops in terms of raw time in a continuous current carrying environment. Current carrying filaments need not 'dissipate' at rates that you personally predict based on time. In fact 'plasma' has had a long history of defying virtually all of the mathematical models used to describe it.

The time for formation and dissipation of coronal loops is not a prediction but an observation. We observe that they last from minutes to days. If the "continuous currrent" in a model gives rise to steady state behaviour then the model is not portraying the time-varying solar conditions, and if it gives rise to transient phenomena then the time dynamics of those phenomena would have to scale as indicated above.

Having said all that, I am not disparaging Birkeland's work, which was remarkable for its time and critical to understanding the planetary aurora, and which shows some analogous qualitative features of solar phenomena, but the scaling issues, the imposition of an external electric field, the net current and the lack of gravity guarantee that it has little to say about quantitative predictions regarding important and not-fully-explained phenomena such as the coronal temperature and acceleration of particles in the solar wind.

The only way to get there is for you to embrace Birkeland's original prediction of a positively charged 'space" surrounding at "cathode" solar surface. Or, you could alternatively embrace an anode solar model, but then you'd have to explain why the vast majority of the cosmic rays which bombard our solar system at the speed of light are overwhelmingly *positively* charged particles, and explain how and why suns emit "cathode rays"/ aka electron beams as Birkeland's cathode model predicts.

Either way you'll end up with a charge separation between the surface of the sun and "space". We can't discuss much unless and until you'll 'go there' in terms of electric fields in space because that's how they all work.

There is so much wrong with this, it is hard to know where to start. First of all the solar wind is net neutral (it has to be, otherwise there is the insurmountable problem of charge build-up). Secondly, there is no evidence for a substantial absolute charge at the photosphere or in the corona. Third, the cosmic rays are the nuclei of atoms stripped of their electrons, and the current density and total current into the Sun is miniscule, so they do not represent a positively charged space.

However, it is certainly not true of EU proponents in general who seem to believe that the Sun is powered by some galactic current in some ill-defined manner (Cargo, JP Michael and Birgit all making claims of this sort in the last week in this forum). What is the position of the EU principals, people like Juergens, Scott, Thornhill etc.?
Juergens says: "The known characteristics of the interplanetary medium suggest not only that the sun and the planets are electrically charged, but that the sun itself is the focus of a cosmic electric discharge — the probable source of all its radiant energy"

I'm afraid that Juergen's original model isn't precisely the same model that is championed by anyone alive today in the 'anode' community that I'm aware of. The anode EU community has 'moved on' and grown a bit. Scott and Thornhill predict in their books that fusion occurs near the electrode surface and predict variations in neutrino emissions to track with sunspot activity. At least some of the "power" related to the sun's total power output would necessarily have to occur in those electrode surface fusion events.

One might also conceive of a mostly internally powered anode model with 'some' power being supplied externally, so it's possible for a full 'range' of possible currents to be present in various locations around the solar body at any given time depending on whether one embraces 'any' local amount of solar fusion, including the solar atmosphere.

Scott: "The Sun may be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies."

Thornhill: "I agree entirely with your treatment of stars as a part of an electrical circuit rather than self-sustaining, isolated gas spheres. (I pointed out some years ago that the possible oscillatory nature of such circuits may offer a simple explanation for some variable stars and pulsars. The explosive effects are seen in novae and some features on the sun)"

I think you're taking Scott's statement out of context with the rest of his work. I know Scott predicts surface fusion events.

I tend to agree with Thornhill that no star is an electrical island unto itself, rather each sun electrically interacts with an electrical grid called "space". No disagreement there.

In this, you are fudging the issue and pretending that the majority of the proponents of the EU do not hold to the idea that the Sun is overwhelmingly electrically powered. You know that they do, and you seem to be embarassed by it. What is also made clear by this discussion is that the EU is not even a coherent quantified hypothesis, but something entirely different and idiosyncratic for each EU supporter. Apparently, according to you, some of them believe there is some fusion in the surface, but that is not what the direct quotes from them say, it is not clear what proportion of the Sun's radiant energy they think arises from this source, and there is no evidence for a substantial rate of fusion there anyway.

Even I would have to add "something" external to the "power" provided by 'space', if only in the form of high speed cosmic rays which continuously bombard our solar system at nearly the the speed of light, and which are *overwhelmingly* positively charged particles with a lot of inbound kinetic energy.

I don't really understand what you mean by this statement. Are you claiming that a substantial portion of the sun's energy output arises from cosmic rays?

As the "Electric Sun" is such an ill-defined hypothesis, I cannot say what are the particle flows from which it is claimed to derive its energy. I have to rely on the authors of the hypothesis, and they have not been clear on this. But I will say that there cannot be a net charge flow into or out of the Sun over time, and so I await a viable scenario for an electically powered Sun that does not conflict with observation.

I've read BIrkeland's work for myself, and I tend to believe that he's correct about the charge of the surface of the electrode surface with respect to "space" (cosmic rays).

In that case you, or someone in the EU community, should be able to do the sums to show how the cosmic rays give rise to the 10^26 W of the Sun's power output. Or if not that, then how the dynamic charge separation at the surface represented by incoming cosmic rays creates a plasma environment that heats the corona to 10^6K and creates and sustains coronal loops and CMEs. Quantitatively.

[Michael Mozina]

I think I'll just skip the 'take it up with Alfven' comments

Your head's in the sand.

Wow. I've seen projection before, but you take the cake. You *completely* missed 60 or so pages of Birkeland's work on solar physics, and you seem to have *not* read Alfven's work for yourself because you keep avoiding even answering my questions about whether or not you've even read it! It's pretty clear who has their head in the pseudoscientific sand around here. A *century* later, you're still incapable of producing something as simple of a sustained corona and an aurora based on MRx. Why is that Higgsy? Why are you more than a full century behind in the lab? Stop avoiding that direct question. Have you read Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven, yes or no?

I think it's quite clear that these lab experiments (Birkeland, SAFIRE, Leicester University) can show some superficial and qualitative aspects of some steady state phenomena, specifically planetary aurora,

They aren't "superficial" in any way, shape or form Higgsy. They're *directly* (physically) related phenomenon. All of these experiments demonstrate that the solar atmospheric phenomenon is *electrical* in nature, and it has *nothing* whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection". Circuit theory *simulates* the process because it's an *electrically* driven process.

but that in general their scaling is woefully incorrect for modelling solar phenomena as Alfven quite clearly states in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 of Cosmical Electrodynamics. Section 3.12 of that work focuses on the required similarity transformations to properly scale plasma phenomena from nature to the laboartory. (Thanks to Eugene again for pointing this out to me).

Have you read any of Alfven's *later* work? Cosmic Plasma?'

It is abundantly clear that, if quantitative modelling of plasma effects is what you're after, the experiments above fail in many dimensions: time, ]temperature, total current, total potential, electric and magnetic field, density, current density.

False. You make that up in your head. You provided *zero* supporting evidence, and you ignored all of Birkeland's work on this topic!

In the models, time of transient events is too long,

Not all events are 'transient' in the way you think they are.

the temperatures are too low by a factor of about 1000,

Considering the voltages and currents used in the lab thus far, that's hardly surprising.

the product of total current and potential (power generated by resistive heating) are off by a factor of 10^23

Eh? Where was that *ever* a requirement of Birkeland's "electric sun" model, or Alfven's "electric sun" model again?

if we're talking about an electric Sun model,

*Who's* 'electric sun' model? *Which* "electric sun" model?

or by some less but still large factor if we are talking about a fusion powered Sun,

Why would a fusion powered sun even *necessarily* require external energy to start with? You seem to be tilting at windmills of your own design, or which were designed by Juergen's the the 1950's with *no* modifications (or supporters) whatsoever.

the magnetic fields are either absent or too low by factors of tens of billions (the magnetic field in the corona is 0.1G at 4 Sun radii up to 10G at 1 solar radius; and as high as 350G in coronal loops, and magnetic field scales as x^-1), the density is too low by about a factor of 1000 (see my previous post), the electron current density is too low by a factor of about 10^16 (current density scales as x^-2, so by 10^18 and the electron flux at 1 AU is about 3x10^12 m^-2 s^-1 giving an electron current density at the Sun of ~22mA m^-2), and the nett current density is too high (should be zero).

Er, which model were you basing any of these calculations on? As far as I can tell, you made this all up on your own.

On top of all that there is an absence of a central gravitational field

That's obviously false. The sphere actually has a gravitational field and the whole process is taking place inside of a gravitational field. It's a very "small" field by solar comparison, but it too can be scaled.

and there is a net current not observed in the case of the Sun.

Boloney. We *do* observe currents going into the sun and out of the sun, and we simply have no way to measure that total current yet. The sun dumps *huge* amounts of current into our atmosphere during solar storms too using "magnetic ropes" which connect the sun to various planets.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/them ... ights.html

You're simply living in pure denial of what we have actually observed in space.

It's crystal clear that these lab models might show some superficial and qualitative aspects of solar plasma behaviour (and in the case of SAFIRE and the Leicester Uni models not even that), but they are not good models of solar plasma dynamics.

Horse manure. They are *wonderful* models of solar plasma dynamics because they involve *powerful* electric fields and that is the power source of the sun's corona and it's upper atmosphere. Admittedly the cathode version produces even *more* of the observed effect, like electron beams coming from the sun, but they both result in a *sustained* corona.

The time for formation and dissipation of coronal loops is not a prediction but an observation.

So what? You can't even make them form in the lab at all with 'magnetic reconnection', certainly not sustain them over time. I see nothing about them that is inherently "time limited" in the way that you seem to insist.

We observe that they last from minutes to days.

Ok, yet you can't get them to last even a full *minute* in a lab experiment that is based on "magnetic reconnection".

If the "continuous currrent" in a model gives rise to steady state behaviour then the model is not portraying the time-varying solar conditions,

If? Why must it *necessarily* give rise to a steady state behavior in *all* cases again? You're intentionally oversimplifying the issues.

and if it gives rise to transient phenomena then the time dynamics of those phenomena would have to scale as indicated above.

We do observe "tiny" discharges near the surface in that Birkeland experiment. Did you try scaling those?

Having said all that, I am not disparaging Birkeland's work,

Yes you are, and you're *misrepresenting* it to boot!

which was remarkable for its time

It's remarkable even by today's standards. It's more than a full *century* ahead of producing aurora and corona and electron beams from the sphere than your entire *industry* based on "magnetic reconnection" models.

and critical to understanding the planetary aurora, and which shows some analogous qualitative features of solar phenomena,

It's critical to understanding solar corona too which show some of the same analogous qualitative and quantitative features of it too.

but the scaling issues,

You're making those up. There's no problem with the scaling issues, in fact that's exactly what Birkeland did.

the imposition of an external electric field,

"Space" has a net positive cosmic ray background, so even in real life there is an imposition of an external electric field.

the net current

You've never demonstrated that, you've simply *assumed* a number.

and the lack of gravity

Pfft. It doesn't "lack" gravity. It's simply an irrelevant aspect of *solar atmospheric heating*.

guarantee that it has little to say about quantitative predictions regarding important and not-fully-explained phenomena such as the coronal temperature and acceleration of particles in the solar wind.

False. You can't even explain the a coronal loops, let alone their high "temperatures" sustained over days on end. You certainly can't simulate one in a lab based on "magnetic reconnection'.

There is so much wrong with this, it is hard to know where to start. First of all the solar wind is net neutral (it has to be, otherwise there is the insurmountable problem of charge build-up).

No, particle flow from the sun can carry current. It *doesn't* have to be "net neutral", as the *simulation itself* demonstrates. How did you even decide anything is "neutral" in an environment as large and as complex as our entire solar system?

There also doesn't need to be any charge build up as long as you allow for currents to flow *into and out of* the heliosphere. We actually *measure* the existence of electron beams coming off the sun, and hitting things in space.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sune ... trahl.html

Even if you could 'count' every single electron and ions inside of a cubic kilometer or so of plasma, and it *exactly* matched in terms of electrons vs. ions, you still could not draw the conclusion that the solar wind is 'neutral'. The speed and direction of the particles over time would matter, as would the sum total of all the miles in the rest of the sun's atmosphere over time.

Secondly, there is no evidence for a substantial absolute charge at the photosphere or in the corona.

False. There is observational evidence in the form of a hot corona, that is *full sphere*, and sustained over time, just as Birkeland's model would require. This is pure denial on your part at this point. You have a *full century* of *direct empirical laboratory* evidence of an absolute charge being responsible for the hot corona around the sun.

Third, the cosmic rays are the nuclei of atoms stripped of their electrons, and the current density and total current into the Sun is miniscule, so they do not represent a positively charged space.

False again. Whether or not they are "minuscule" in your personal opinion is irrelevant. They represent a *net positive* current flowing into our solar system, most of which is "deflected/absorbed" by the sun *outer heliosphere*.

In this, you are fudging the issue and pretending that the majority of the proponents of the EU do not hold to the idea that the Sun is overwhelmingly electrically powered.

I've never taken a poll, and I really don't believe that science is a 'popularity' contest, so it wouldn't matter to me one iota. I've heard *many* solar models described on Thunderbolts forums, cathode versions, anode versions, internally and externally powered, and relatively 'standard fusion' ones discussed here too over the years.

You know that they do, and you seem to be embarassed by it.

I'm certainly not embarrassed by anything that goes on here at Thunderbolts compared to the embarrassment I feel for mainstream astronomers talking about dark metaphysical nonsense on their forums.

What is also made clear by this discussion is that the EU is not even a coherent quantified hypothesis, but something entirely different and idiosyncratic for each EU supporter.

And you think that's not also true of "dark matter" proponents, each with their own "pet" concepts?

Apparently, according to you, some of them believe there is some fusion in the surface,

I have been forced to quote both Scott and Thornhill from their respective books to point out that fact to so called "professionals" in your industry that misrepresented their direct statements when claiming they both predicted "no neutrinos" came from the sun. Your industry has a bad habit of flat out misrepresenting the statements of EU/PC proponents. I'm not aware of any EU proponent that predicts that the sun emits "no neutrinos". Therefore some 'local fusion' must be accounted for even in modern anode models.

but that is not what the direct quotes from them say, it is not clear what proportion of the Sun's radiant energy they think arises from this source, and there is no evidence for a substantial rate of fusion there anyway.

I'm not sure why any model, anode or otherwise is limited to having "no" amount of internal (below the surface of the photosphere) amount of fusion.

Again however, I'm personally quite happy (as was Birkeland and Alfven) with a mostly *internally* powered solar model.

I don't really understand what you mean by this statement. Are you claiming that a substantial portion of the sun's energy output arises from cosmic rays?

No, I'm saying that sun in electrically wired to the rest of the universe, and it's not an electrical island unto itself.

In that case you, or someone in the EU community, should be able to do the sums to show how the cosmic rays give rise to the 10^26 W of the Sun's power output.

That is a *complete strawman* of everything I've said! Sheesh.

Or if not that, then how the dynamic charge separation at the surface represented by incoming cosmic rays creates a plasma environment that heats the corona to 10^6K and creates and sustains coronal loops and CMEs. Quantitatively.

Every single place in space where plasma reaches those temperatures, and *sustains* such temperatures over time are places where Alfven (and/or Peratt) have specifically used circuit theory to explain their presence, including coronal loops. Have you read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven, yes or no? Have you read Peratt's book "Physics of the Plasma Universe"? Yes or no?

[JHL]

Wow. I've seen projection before, but you take the cake.

Heh. Some animals are more equal than others, Michael.

[Higgsy]

The similarity transformations in section 3:12 of Alfven's Cosmical Electrodynamics are crystal clear. He sets out how to properly model a large naturally occurring plasma in a small laboratory experiment; or conversely to how interpret the results of a small laboratory experiment in terms of a large naturally occurring plasma. As Michael is reluctant to accept these similarity relationships, even though they are endorsed by Alfven, and he doesn't believe a word I say, I will let Alfven make my case for me:

Alfven wrote: "When changing the linear scale by a factor of η the most characteristic features of the phenomena remain unchanged if at the same time we change other quantities according to Table 3.1

Table 3.1
length, time, inductance, capacitance η^1
particle energy, velocity, potential, current, resistance η^0=1
electric and magnetic fields, conductivity, neutral gas density, ionization fraction η^−1
current density, electron and ion densities η^−2

Propotionality between length and time is required by Maxwell's equations. The most characteristic features of a discharge depend upon the interactions between atoms, electrons and quanta. As these interactions depend in a very complicated way upon the energies involved, we must leave all energies and hence the electrostatic potential (which determines the kinetic energy of a charged particle) unchanged. If we change the linear dimensions l by a factor η, the electric field E must be changed by η^-1 in order to leave the potential V ~lE unchanged.

Because of Maxwell's equations, we must change D, H and B in the same way as E. The current density i which is equivalent to the displacement current ∂D/∂t must be changed by the factor η^-2, which means that the total current I=il^2 remains unchanged...Further, as the mean free path, which is of fundamental importance in gaseous discharges, varies as the linear dimnesion, the density ρ of the gas, which is inversely proportional to the mean free path must be changed as η^−1...

If we want to apply the results obtained in a laboratory apparatus with the linear extension of 10cm to cosmic phenomena, we have to increase the scale by a factor of 10^8 - 10^9 with regard to the conditions around the Earth, a factor of 10^10 for the Sun, 10^12 - 10^13 for the planetary system and 10^21 - 10^22 for the galaxy. Perhaps it is of more interest to go the other way, i.e. to transform the cosmic phenomena down to laboratory scale...It shows what quantities are the most important ones, and indicates to what extent it is possible to make scale-model experiments illustrating cosmic phenomena...

[Alfven then introduces a table which shows how some critical characteristics of cosmic phenomena scale to the lab. He goes on to discuss how the lab experiment should be scaled.]

When considering electrical phenomena the interstellar space of our galaxy should not be compared with a 'vacuum' but with a highly ionized gas at a pressure of 100 atmospheres. Still more striking than the high densities are the very high magnetic fields in the cosmos. In fact they are so strong that at present our laboratory resources do not suffice to produce fields strong enough for model experiments... [Table 3.2 calls for magnetic fields in the model from 10^9G to 10^11G]

Finally, the time-scale transformation in Table 3.2 is of interest. Solar flares, coronal arcs, and also the intial phase of a magnetic storm should be regarded as very short-lived phenomena. In fact their equivalent duration (a few μsecs) is of the order of the ignition time of an electric discharge."

When Alfven considered lab experiments he assumed a typical size of experiment to be 10cm which makes η=10^-10 for the Sun in Table 3.2, which would be about right for several of Birkeland's models. In the calculations I did in my previous post (they are not difficult, merely simple arithmetic), I assumed the lab experiment to be about 1m which makes η~=10^-9, thereby easing the discrepancies between model and actual Sun by a factor of 10 compared with Alfven's calculations. So all of the calculations of the previous post stand, and critical plasma characteristics from pressure to current density to magnetic field are incorrect in the lab models by factors between 1,000 and 1,000,000,000 for a non-electrically powered Sun and up to 10^23 for an electrically powered Sun (and SAFIRE and the Leicester Uni solar models lack a magnetic field altogether). It should be obvious that a discrepancy of a factor of 1,000 is not trivial, and discrepancies of 10^10 and 10^23 are rather large. That's how far away all of the lab models are from the phenomena they are attempting to model. So it is not a surprising conclusion that none of these lab models offer any quantitative insight into solar phenomena.

[BeAChooser]

So, Higgsy, were you ever able to see the helically wound filaments in this image?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ebulas.jpg

It clearly contains helically wound filaments in the upper right quadrant, if not elsewhere.

Clear as day.

But last time we discussed this, you claimed it doesn’t.

So I’m just wondering if your vision has improved since then?

And if it has, then maybe you could explain how that helically structured filament came to be … and do it without referencing gnomes?

Also, last time we talked, you were proclaiming that I hadn’t proven that filaments are ubiquitous.

Have you finally changed your mind about that?

If not, maybe you could do what you didn't do the last time we discussed that ... comment on this scientific article ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.6232.pdf ) which contains a picture of a portion of the Herschel photographed B211/B213 filament in Taurus. The links states that “filamentary structure is omnipresent in every cloud observed with Herschel, irrespective of its starforming content.” And Philippe André, Principal Investigator for the Herschel Gould Belt Survey, wrote “the greatest surprise was the ubiquity of filaments in these nearby clouds and their intimate connection with star formation.”

And comment on the fact that the Herchel website at ESA states ( http://sci.esa.int/herschel/55942-hersc ... ilky-way/ ) that “Observations with ESA's Herschel space observatory have revealed that our Galaxy is threaded with filamentary structures on every length scale. From nearby clouds hosting tangles of filaments a few light-years long to gigantic structures stretching hundreds of light-years across the Milky Way's spiral arms, they appear to be truly ubiquitous.”

And this 2018 paper that I previously cited ( https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... on_content ), which states “most well-studied filaments in nearby clouds appear as curved and intertwined structures embedded in the larger molecular cloud material" and a 2017 paper titled “Interstellar filaments and star formation” (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 1317300901 ) that acknowledged “filaments are truly ubiquitous“ and “probably make up a dominant fraction of the dense gas in molecular clouds”.

Given all that, do you really believe that I was just “eyeballing pretty pictures and making up stories”? Hmmmmm?

[Higgsy]

So, Higgsy, were you ever able to see the helically wound filaments in this image?

I gave you your answer here. You are not going to get a different one, so go away.