Debunking Dave

[Cargo]

Alfven agrees: "It was soon realized, however, that no real scaling of cosmic phenomena down to laboratory size is possible, partly because of the large number of parameters involved which obey different scaling laws. Hence, laboratory experiments should aim at clarifying a number of basic phenomena of importance in cosmic physics rather than trying to reproduce a scaled-down version of the cosmic example." in Structure and Evolutionary Hostory of the Solar System.

What I think you are missing here, is the fact that the 'clarifying a number of basic phenomena' is what WAS accomplished. As opposed to the Gravity Witch Space and Dark Unicorns. And at this time, resolving the basic simple physical examples into factual science, the overall system multiplied across billions of stars and galaxies was too much to compute. And yet, based on observational evidence since then, the structures and basic concepts have proven True.

Can the same be said about Ice Ball Comets and Singularities? Or 'anything' that the mainstream astro-pyshics have conjured up in the past few decades at least?

[Michael Mozina]

Assume there is current. Alfven does when he sets out the scale factors for various variables.

I don't have to "assume" it, I can measure it in terms of the actual physical experiments.

Either you accept those factors, which are also pretty much agreed by everyone, or you don't. If you don't, you need to explain exactly how to scale a plasma down by a factor of a billion and give a rationale for your opinion.

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

I've already explained the "rationale". Such "scaled" experiments have already been *successfully* used to make a whole host of *successful* predictions about the sun and about aurora. Scaling didn't diminish the validity of Birkeland's key predictions. His model *still* produces aurora. It still produces a corona around the solar sphere that is hotter than the surface of the solar surface. It produces solar wind. It produces coronal loops. It produces "polar jets", cathode rays, etc.

So give me a link to where in any of Birkeland's lab model, SAFIRE or any other supposed full solar model, high speed cameras have been employed to investigate transient events in the models. Not a hand wave, mate, it's a fact, just a fact you happen not to like.

You seem to be confusing the issue of *investigation* (and financial investment) with the concept of "scaling". The fact it hasn't been done doesn't mean it *cannot* be done.

The process *scales* beautifully which is why Birkeland was able to make so many successful predictions about solar system physics based on what he learned from his laboratory experiments.

You're simply begging the question. I say that because of the scaling issues amongst other things Birkeland's model tells us little or nothing about how the Sun works.

That's simply false. If it were actually true, then Birkeland's various solar and auroral predictions would have been shown to be false rather than shown to be accurate. However the *exact opposite* is true.

Alfven agrees: "It was soon realized, however, that no real scaling of cosmic phenomena down to laboratory size is possible, partly because of the large number of parameters involved which obey different scaling laws. Hence, laboratory experiments should aim at clarifying a number of basic phenomena of importance in cosmic physics rather than trying to reproduce a scaled-down version of the cosmic example." in Structure and Evolutionary Hostory of the Solar System.

I have no faith that you're accurately portraying Alfven's beliefs on this matter. Anyone can take a sentence or two out of context. At no point was Alfven suggesting that nothing about the solar system and plasma behaviors in space can be learned by lab experiments.

What makes the Sun's surface negatively charged,

It's *less* positively charged than the cosmic rays of space which bombard it constantly.

what is the voltage,

About 600 million volts according to Birkeland, closer to a billion volts according to Alfven. They're both in the same basic ballpark however.

what process leads to that voltage,

Are you ever going to read Birkeland's work for yourself?

and what processes in or on the Sun are influenced or determined by this charge?

Same question. About *every* high energy event in the solar atmosphere and solar system if influenced by that charge and by that electric field.

Well, according to mainstream solar models, even the process of solar convection results in a negatively charged external solar surface.

Yes but this is in relation to a discussion on cosmic rays which you seem to be trying to reset. I am asking you specifically about your view on the role of cosmic rays with regard to the Sun. Don't forget you say over and over: "our whole solar system is being constantly bombarded by positively charged cosmic rays, traveling at near the speed of light." You seem to think that is important with regard to the Sun, but when I get you to explain why you think so quantitatively, you hide behind Birkeland who wasn't even aware of the existence of cosmic rays, having died before their discovery. So try not to obfuscate, and explain quantitaively what you think the cosmic ray flux does to the Sun.

That's not entirely true. Cosmic rays were discovered in 1912, and Birkeland died in 1917. I don't think anyone knew about their exact composition during Birkeland's lifetime, but it certainly contributes to and supports Birkeland's assumption that "Space" is positively charged. In terms of the quantitative effect, it's only partially relevant because Birkeland's solar model is *internally* powered. It simply electrically interacts with "space", and indeed that's exactly what's happening.

[Cargo]

I can't wait for the Higgs and Dave to do the 'clarifying a number of basic phenomena' about the Big Bang and Dark Energy/Matter through physical experiments. Or Aurora or Stars or soon to be streaming on Discover+ Science: The Dark Gravity Theory.

[Higgsy]

Assume there is current. Alfven does when he sets out the scale factors for various variables.

I don't have to "assume" it, I can measure it in terms of the actual physical experiments.

Fine. We agree there is current. So does Alfven. So this isn't really one of those conditions which invalidate the scaling laws. Are there others, or can we agree the scaling laws are correct?

Either you accept those factors, which are also pretty much agreed by everyone, or you don't. If you don't, you need to explain exactly how to scale a plasma down by a factor of a billion and give a rationale for your opinion.

I've already explained the "rationale". Such "scaled" experiments have already been *successfully* used to make a whole host of *successful* predictions about the sun and about aurora.

Only if you beg the question. My position is that so far as Birkeland's solar lab model is concerned, any resemblance between it and actual observations is purely coincidental and of little or no value, because the scaling laws say that it is wrong in every parameter. There is nothing detailed or quantified that Birkeland's solar lab model actually predicts.

So give me a link to where in any of Birkeland's lab model, SAFIRE or any other supposed full solar model, high speed cameras have been employed to investigate transient events in the models. Not a hand wave, mate, it's a fact, just a fact you happen not to like.

You seem to be confusing the issue of *investigation* (and financial investment) with the concept of "scaling". The fact it hasn't been done doesn't mean it *cannot* be done.

Indeed, but it hasn't been done, so as far as transient events go, the lab models have actually told us nothing because no-one has interrogated them at the right timescale. And they are invalidated by being improperly scaled for a host of other parameters.

Alfven agrees: "It was soon realized, however, that no real scaling of cosmic phenomena down to laboratory size is possible, partly because of the large number of parameters involved which obey different scaling laws. Hence, laboratory experiments should aim at clarifying a number of basic phenomena of importance in cosmic physics rather than trying to reproduce a scaled-down version of the cosmic example." in Structure and Evolutionary Hostory of the Solar System.

I have no faith that you're accurately portraying Alfven's beliefs on this matter. Anyone can take a sentence or two out of context. At no point was Alfven suggesting that nothing about the solar system and plasma behaviors in space can be learned by lab experiments.

He was suggesting that individual processes should be studied and accurate models of complete systems (stars, galaxies etc) could not be.

What makes the Sun's surface negatively charged,

It's *less* positively charged than the cosmic rays of space which bombard it constantly.

So in your physics, if you bombard something with positively charged particles, it makes it negatively charged? Wow!

what is the voltage,

About 600 million volts according to Birkeland, closer to a billion volts according to Alfven. They're both in the same basic ballpark however.

Forget what Alfven and Birkeland siad - they have their own reasons for making those claims which we can look at another time. What I want to see is your calculation of the voltage as a consequence of the cosmic ray flux.

Well, according to mainstream solar models, even the process of solar convection results in a negatively charged external solar surface.

Yes but this is in relation to a discussion on cosmic rays which you seem to be trying to reset. I am asking you specifically about your view on the role of cosmic rays with regard to the Sun. Don't forget you say over and over: "our whole solar system is being constantly bombarded by positively charged cosmic rays, traveling at near the speed of light." You seem to think that is important with regard to the Sun, but when I get you to explain why you think so quantitatively, you hide behind Birkeland who wasn't even aware of the existence of cosmic rays, having died before their discovery. So try not to obfuscate, and explain quantitaively what you think the cosmic ray flux does to the Sun.

That's not entirely true. Cosmic rays were discovered in 1912, and Birkeland died in 1917. I don't think anyone knew about their exact composition during Birkeland's lifetime, but it certainly contributes to and supports Birkeland's assumption that "Space" is positively charged. In terms of the quantitative effect, it's only partially relevant because Birkeland's solar model is *internally* powered. It simply electrically interacts with "space", and indeed that's exactly what's happening.

You are still obfuscating - this is physics, not story telling. You repeat over and over again "our whole solar system is being constantly bombarded by positively charged cosmic rays, traveling at near the speed of light.", and you also claim that means that space is positively charged wrt the Sun. I'm asking for your calculation to support your claim. Put numbers on the electric field generated at the Sun by the cosmic ray flux or by the charge density of cosmic rays near the Sun. The question is whether that flux leads to anything that is physically significant - until you quantify it, no-one knows.

[Michael Mozina]

Assume there is current. Alfven does when he sets out the scale factors for various variables.

I don't have to "assume" it, I can measure it in terms of the actual physical experiments.

Fine. We agree there is current. So does Alfven. So this isn't really one of those conditions which invalidate the scaling laws. Are there others, or can we agree the scaling laws are correct?

Scaling "laws"? Hmm. You and I seem to disagree about when a "law" might apply and when it doesn't. For instance, you toss out the "laws" of conservation of energy on whim, both to support "space expansion" and to support 'dark energy". What exactly is a "law" in your opinion? Scaling things like size, voltage, amperage and temperature might be relatively easy for us to agree on, but not necessarily "duration".

Only if you beg the question.

Er, no. No "begging" of any question is required. My beliefs work in the lab. You're the one begging the question with every claim you make.

My position is that so far as Birkeland's solar lab model is concerned, any resemblance between it and actual observations is purely coincidental and of little or no value, because the scaling laws say that it is wrong in every parameter. There is nothing detailed or quantified that Birkeland's solar lab model actually predicts.

Your position is apparently based on ignorance however. I can only assume you *still* haven't read Birkeland's work for yourself yet with respect to solar physics? The fact you think his life's work is of "little or no value" seems irrational considering the fact you've evidently not even read his work yet. How do you figure he came up with various values (like solar voltage) that he posited?

Indeed, but it hasn't been done,

*Some* things have certainly been done. Some things have not. I can't make a lot of "assumptions" about what hasn't been done, nor "assume" that his model has no practical value simply because you wish that he'd done more.

so as far as transient events go, the lab models have actually told us nothing because no-one has interrogated them at the right timescale. And they are invalidated by being improperly scaled for a host of other parameters.

False. Again, you have *arbitrarily* "assumed" that you can scale things like "duration" when in fact the conditions of stable current prohibit you from doing so.

He was suggesting that individual processes should be studied and accurate models of complete systems (stars, galaxies etc) could not be.

Something like internal fusion processes due to gravitational factors may not be easily "scaled" in a lab. On the other hand, something like solar wind, or coronal heating *can* be and have been scaled in the lab quite effectively and accurately.

So in your physics, if you bombard something with positively charged particles, it makes it negatively charged? Wow!

The fact you have to *constantly* build strawmen out of my statements says a lot about the basic weakness of your arguments. You've essentially got a "field" of positively charged particle flying around "space", and everything embedded in that "field" is likely to at least start out more "negatively" charged than the cosmic ray field itself. If the sun is an internal generator, being bombarded by positively charged particles, and gravitational forces cause to to be negatively charged at the surface, I'd expect it to electrically interact with a positively charged "space".

Forget what Alfven and Birkeland siad - they have their own reasons for making those claims which we can look at another time.

When? You seem to be avoiding *why* and *how* they came up with their numbers, and you've apparently never bothered to read their work for yourself, which only makes me doubt that your arguments are scientifically credible since you're exhibiting clear signs of what I'd associate with professional incompetence! How can you dismiss something which you don't even understand in the first place?

What I want to see is your calculation of the voltage as a consequence of the cosmic ray flux.

Why? What difference does it make with respect to *their* work? Do you even know?

You are still obfuscating - this is physics, not story telling.

Pfft. Your entire belief system is *not* based on actual "physics* which works in any lab. Rather it's based *entirely* upon "story telling" about 'hypothetical" forms of matter and energy, with some "pseudoscientific" mathematical stories included. I"m talking about a *working laboratory physical models* which produce *sustained* auroras and coronas in real experiments.

The basic problem you have is that *none* of your astronomy based beliefs actually work in the lab, not a single one. You can't even produce a working *sustained aurora* in a lab based on "magnetic reconnection" for crying out loud, and that's been done for more than a full century based on circuit theory. Worse yet, you can't even produce a published paper that exhaustively and physically studied the exactly physical difference between ordinary induction in plasma and what you're calling "magnetic reconnection"!

Yet somehow you've convinced yourself that if I don't personally whip up some math for you on command on some random forum, that all of the scientific weaknesses of your own beliefs are irrelevant. Sorry, but "science" doesn't work like that.

The problem is obvious. You've got nothing to offer, so all you can do it complain about anyone and everyone who does have something to offer. You won't even read Birkeland's work for yourself. Ignorance is not bliss in the realm of physics.

[Higgsy]

Fine. We agree there is current. So does Alfven. So this isn't really one of those conditions which invalidate the scaling laws. Are there others, or can we agree the scaling laws are correct?

Scaling things like size, voltage, amperage and temperature might be relatively easy for us to agree on, but not necessarily "duration".

Why not?

My position is that so far as Birkeland's solar lab model is concerned, any resemblance between it and actual observations is purely coincidental and of little or no value, because the scaling laws say that it is wrong in every parameter. There is nothing detailed or quantified that Birkeland's solar lab model actually predicts.

Your position is apparently based on ignorance however. I can only assume you *still* haven't read Birkeland's work for yourself yet with respect to solar physics?

Wrong.

The fact you think his life's work is of "little or no value" seems irrational considering the fact you've evidently not even read his work yet.

I didn't say his life's work is of little or no value, and I don't think it. I said, and it's still there above for you to check, that "so far as Birkeland's solar lab model is concerned, any resemblance between it and actual observations is purely coincidental and of little or no value", and I stand by that.

How do you figure he came up with various values (like solar voltage) that he posited?

He calculated it on p665, using an oversimplified idea and making an ill-justified assumption about the Sun's magnetic field. It is not a consequence at all of his lab model so far as I can see.

so as far as transient events go, the lab models have actually told us nothing because no-one has interrogated them at the right timescale. And they are invalidated by being improperly scaled for a host of other parameters.

False. Again, you have *arbitrarily* "assumed" that you can scale things like "duration" when in fact the conditions of stable current prohibit you from doing so.

What makes you think duration is any different from the other parameters. Either you are saying only steady state phenomena are of relevance, in which case we can ignore all transient phenomena; or you are saying transient phenomena are relevant in which case you can't say anything about them from observations of the model, because you haven't observed the model over the correct timescales.

Something like internal fusion processes due to gravitational factors may not be easily "scaled" in a lab. On the other hand, something like solar wind, or coronal heating *can* be and have been scaled in the lab quite effectively and accurately.

No they absolutely haven't. No-one has ever in the history of the Universe ever modelled an entire Sun in the lab to any degree of accuracy.

So in your physics, if you bombard something with positively charged particles, it makes it negatively charged? Wow!

You've essentially got a "field" of positively charged particle flying around "space", and everything embedded in that "field" is likely to at least start out more "negatively" charged than the cosmic ray field itself. If the sun is an internal generator, being bombarded by positively charged particles, and gravitational forces cause to to be negatively charged at the surface, I'd expect it to electrically interact with a positively charged "space".

Well first of all you have repeated the claim that being bombarded by positively charged particles causes the Sun to be negatively charged at the surface (I have bolded your words above, so that people can see exactly what you wrote, so you can't accuse me yet again of making strawmen); and secondly, you are still obfuscating - I do not know, and no-one knows, what this "electrical interaction" between the Sun and the so-called positively charged space actually means in practice, whether it is significant or not, until you quantify it. Until then, you are handwaving.

What I want to see is your calculation of the voltage as a consequence of the cosmic ray flux.

Why? What difference does it make with respect to *their* work? Do you even know?

Because this business of the cosmic rays is your claim, not theirs and this is about your claim, not theirs.

You are still obfuscating - this is physics, not story telling.

Pfft.

Still obfuscating. You have made a claim. Birkeland didn't make the claim. Alfven didn't make the claim. It is your claim, and you should justify it. You keep bleating that "our whole solar system is being constantly bombarded by positively charged cosmic rays, traveling at near the speed of light.", and you also claim that means that space is positively charged wrt the Sun. I'm asking for your calculation to support your claim. Put numbers on the electric field generated at the Sun by the cosmic ray flux or by the charge density of cosmic rays near the Sun. The question is whether that flux leads to anything that is physically significant, or whether the absence of cosmic rays would make any difference at all to the Sun - until you quantify it, no-one knows. And if you can't quantify it, we can assume you're just blustering.

[Higgsy]

You've essentially got a "field" of positively charged particle flying around "space", and everything embedded in that "field" is likely to at least start out more "negatively" charged than the cosmic ray field itself. If the sun is an internal generator, being bombarded by positively charged particles, and gravitational forces cause to to be negatively charged at the surface, I'd expect it to electrically interact with a positively charged "space".

Well first of all you have repeated the claim that being bombarded by positively charged particles causes the Sun to be negatively charged at the surface (I have bolded your words above, so that people can see exactly what you wrote, so you can't accuse me yet again of making strawmen)

I see that I have misparsed your statement above - you didn't say that being bombarded by positively charged particles causes the Sun to be negatively charged at the surface. So I apologise for that. What you did say was that gravitational forces cause the Sun to be negatively charged at the surface, and I disagree with that as well. The rest of my post stands.

[JHL]

Yet somehow you've convinced yourself that if I don't personally whip up some math for you on command on some random forum, that all of the scientific weaknesses of your own beliefs are irrelevant. Sorry, but "science" doesn't work like that.

Heh. It does when you're a scientismist, Michael. Allow me to demonstrate.

You: I have a theory tha-

The Higgs Bison: NO YOU DON'T THAT'S NOT SCIENCE

You: Uh, I was sayin-

The Higgs Bison: WRONG PLEBE WE'RE DOING SCIENCE HERE

You: Yeah, I get that there's an accepted dogma, which is kind my poi-

The Higgs Bison: I NEED FIGURES. NOW. CITE YOUR PROOF

Well, see, the standard model is just that, The Higg-

The Higgs Bison: YOU OFFEND ME WITH YOUR MEAGER NON-SCIENCE, UNBELIEVER

***

Conclusion: Like all human achievement, real science is perfectly suited to anonymous beatdowns on the Internet.

Maybe it's a robot, Michael.

[Cargo]

Can't be really. Well a human robot maybe, but human none the less. I feel honored to have made into his Signature. I must be doing something right, math or not. I even got the exact response I was expecting when I layered that out.. Ha.. Sometimes it's like baking a cake.
Take that NASA?Phys/Science. I made it to Space, like baking bread in an Oven.

[dren]

All the great physicists who are often quoted on here, Birkeland, Alfven, etc, had experimentation and math to explain what they were observing. Math is certainly beneficial. It lets you know if your observations and theories are in the ballpark or not, but when sound math doesn't work, the theory should be revisited, not the math.

[paladin17]

Regarding the novae shocks and currents: there need not be any contradiction here, since hydromagnetic shocks should be associated with currents, and these currents (represented as sheets in a "first" approximation - e.g. current sheet of an Earth's magnetosphere bow shock) may and do separate into filaments (in the "second" approximation) - depending on the current strength and other parameters.
Here I reference Alfven's "Cosmic Plasma", II.4.

I agree in principle, but it has been demonstrated that the filaments (here I use filaments in the sense of Hester and the others to mean the thin shock front sheets seen edge-on) are tangential to the shock front. You would expect currents to be flowing perpendicular to the local plane of the shock so any electrical filaments should also be perpendicular to the shock. That's not the case for the photographs being presented here. Do you know of any study which predicts tangential currents at the shock front?

It is my understanding that currents in shock fronts generally flow parallel to the shock boundary [and later they may demonstrate filamentation for other reasons, which was my initial point]. This is definitely the case for Earth's bow shock (e.g. see Cluster measurements and the according models).
I am not sure this is true in general, as I haven't studied the theory behind shock propagation in plasmas enough. So I just inductively assume it is the case.

[Higgsy]

Regarding the novae shocks and currents: there need not be any contradiction here, since hydromagnetic shocks should be associated with currents, and these currents (represented as sheets in a "first" approximation - e.g. current sheet of an Earth's magnetosphere bow shock) may and do separate into filaments (in the "second" approximation) - depending on the current strength and other parameters.
Here I reference Alfven's "Cosmic Plasma", II.4.

I agree in principle, but it has been demonstrated that the filaments (here I use filaments in the sense of Hester and the others to mean the thin shock front sheets seen edge-on) are tangential to the shock front. You would expect currents to be flowing perpendicular to the local plane of the shock so any electrical filaments should also be perpendicular to the shock. That's not the case for the photographs being presented here. Do you know of any study which predicts tangential currents at the shock front?

It is my understanding that currents in shock fronts generally flow parallel to the shock boundary [and later they may demonstrate filamentation for other reasons, which was my initial point]. This is definitely the case for Earth's bow shock (e.g. see Cluster measurements and the according models).
I am not sure this is true in general, as I haven't studied the theory behind shock propagation in plasmas enough. So I just inductively assume it is the case.

I understand your point, and I can understand that currents in a planetary bow shock might preferentially flow parallel to the shock front (and the magnetic field drapes around the front), but is this true for plasma shock fronts in general? Planetary bow shocks are relatively local disruptions of the solar wind by the planet. Surprisingly, the magnetic field at the heliopause does not seem to drape according to Pioneer measurements, and the flow becomes turbulent and stalled near the heliopause. An SNR shock on the other hand involves fast radial outflows of matter which encounter ISM gases on a large scale. Certainly, young SNRs display radial magnetic fields. I suppose the post-shock turbulence might be expected to give rise to some tangential currents, but I don't expect strong tangential currents pre-shock or at the shock itself, which is what is being imaged here.

However, like you, I haven't studied plasma shock in detail, and I can't rule out tangential currents, but I still think that what we are seeing in that small area is an artefact not a current filament, especially as it has the same properties as the surrounding material.

[paladin17]

I understand your point, and I can understand that currents in a planetary bow shock might preferentially flow parallel to the shock front (and the magnetic field drapes around the front), but is this true for plasma shock fronts in general? Planetary bow shocks are relatively local disruptions of the solar wind by the planet. Surprisingly, the magnetic field at the heliopause does not seem to drape according to Pioneer measurements, and the flow becomes turbulent and stalled near the heliopause. An SNR shock on the other hand involves fast radial outflows of matter which encounter ISM gases on a large scale. Certainly, young SNRs display radial magnetic fields. I suppose the post-shock turbulence might be expected to give rise to some tangential currents, but I don't expect strong tangential currents pre-shock or at the shock itself, which is what is being imaged here.

However, like you, I haven't studied plasma shock in detail, and I can't rule out tangential currents, but I still think that what we are seeing in that small area is an artefact not a current filament, especially as it has the same properties as the surrounding material.

Indeed it is a really curious anomaly that V's have found - the toroidal character of the field even beyond the heliopause. I am reminded that there are at least 3 different models of the heliosphere's shape in the first place (1 - "comet-like", 2 - "spherical", 3 - "croissant"), and we have little idea of what goes on with it in a large scheme of things (there is an often overlooked question of "open magnetic field lines" from coronal holes - where and how exactly do they close? etc.). I also remember recent PSP finding of a higher angular momentum (~ tangential plasma velocity) being detected closer to the Sun than previously assumed - people are very worried that it is not viable on Byr timescales (too much angular momentum would be lost). Perhaps it is somehow related to this extra toroidal-ness a bit beyond our bubble, though at this point it's anybody's guess.

Regarding shocks, I can only repeat what I said previously (also, the link I took from the neighboring topic shows that Martian bow shock's sheet behaves in a similar manner - see Fig. 4). And maybe add that in general current sheets arise between regions of different magnetization (I would expect SN cavity and surrounding medium to fit here) and/or temperature (same) and maybe something else too. And simply by definition I can't really envision a "sheet" where the current would be flowing perpendicular to the "sheet" itself - it doesn't really make sense to me. But that's more on a rhetorical side, perhaps.

[Higgsy]

Indeed it is a really curious anomaly that V's have found

Ach! Voyagers not Pioneers - brain fart.

[JP Michael]

This thread seems to have come a long way from 'Debunking Dave' eh?