Debunking Dave

[Higgsy]

Well, after thousands of words, you have proven to your own satisfaction and to mine that Birkeland's solar lab model and SAFIRE are like the Sun in that they are all approximately speherical. Neither lab model has any other feature which represents the Sun's processes quantitatively. If you can point to any single aspect of Birkeland's description of his lab model, that gives us any quantitative insight at all into the underlying physical processes of the Sun that we don't already have from observations, I'll look at it again. In such a case, you should describe exactly what Birkeland found, referencing the page number on which we find the description, and setting out what that means quantitatively at the scale of the Sun (so setting out voltages, currents, magnetic fields, temperatures etc, whatever is relevant to the specific insight you are claiming.)

1) I can see for myself that it's [the cosmic ray flux] a significant enough number to drive all the predicted electrical processes that we see in solar coronas, solar discharges in solar flares (Dungey), solar strahl, etc...

2) You will never find what you refuse to see. You have solar strahl streaming *away* from the sun, with positively charged cosmic rays *beaming* into the sun at nearly the speed of light in some cases...

3) You're blatantly and intentionally ignoring the constant bombardment of the solar system with positively charged ions. You won't see that current because you *refuse* to acknowledge it...

4)It ultimately doesn't matter to me *how much* if any current might be coming into the sun from the galaxy since I assume that the sun is internally powered to start with. You're making sound as though the number that I come up with must have some great relevance to powering the sun. I didn't even suggest such a thing to start with, so whatever the number might be, it's not that important to me personally in reference to my preference for Birkeland's solar model...

I have just put four quotes together from your last post or two. When pressed to quantify the importance of cosmic rays to the Sun's processes, you go into obfuscation mode, and pretend that it doesn't matter a jot so far as you are concerned in 4). But in 1), 2) and 3), you are in full Rotweiler mode, trying to belabour me with the importance of the cosmic rays, and accusing me of ignoring them. You need to make your mind up as to whether they matter or not, and if they do matter you need to be able to articulate what exactly it is that they do, because as sure as the Earth turns you haven't done that yet.

Now once and for all, I am not denying the cosmic ray flux. I am trying to ascertain what importance you think it has in the Sun's processes, something that only you can tell me as it's uniquely your idea. The first step in deciding if your idea has any merit is for you to articulate clearly what you think is going on with the Sun so far as the cosmic rays go. The second step is to take the known flux and to calculate whether it does what you think it does. Both of those are jobs for you.

If are unwilling or unable to do that, your repeated appeal to cosmic rays is not just impotent, but eventually becomes dishonest.

and you cannot show me a single quote from him which would justify your implication that he ever held your idea that cosmic rays have some important role in the Sun's processes.

What exactly do you think he meant by suggesting that "space" has a "positive charge"? When did Birkeland ever limit all ions from the sun to solar wind speeds?

This is what Birkeland had to say about the Sun having a negative charge with respect to space:
"It is at present not easy to see how a negative tension should be continually created by the sun in relation to space.

It is of course possible to imagine that a surplus of positive ions is always being carried away from the sun or that negative ions are always being carried towards the sun, and that the negative tension is produced in this manner; and that the balance is maintained to some extent by distinct disruptive discharges, as we have presupposed."

There is no mention here of space being positively charged, but only of the Sun being negatively charged, for which he proposes the mechanisms of positive ions streaming away from the Sun, and electrons (or negative ions) streaming into the Sun. No mention of positive ions flowing into the Sun. Therefore, Birkeland's proposed mechanism does not involve positive ions flowing into the Sun (or being in the Sun's vicinity). Have you actually read his book? You will note that he acknowledges that the source of the 600MV is not obvious. You will also note at the conclusion of this section that he acknowledges that he has no viable proposal for the 600MV, falling back on a possible extension to Maxwell's equations which has never transpired.

The lab model does not contain any analogue of cosmic rays so it has nothing to say about your claim that cosmic rays are important to the Sun's processes.

Sure it does. The experiment has 'sides of the box" that remain at a relatively constant charge, even while being bombarded by cathode rays from the sun. Something has to offset the cathode rays somewhere.

What "offsets" the cathode rays and keeps the sides of the box at a "constant charge" is the fact that the sides of the box are conducting and connected by a sodding great copper wire to one terminal of a voltage generator, the other terminal of which is connected by another great sodding wire to the metal sphere. There is no analogue of cosmic rays in the lab model.

It ultimately doesn't matter to me *how much* if any current might be coming into the sun from the galaxy since I assume that the sun is internally powered to start with. You're making sound as though the number that I come up with must have some great relevance to powering the sun. I didn't even suggest such a thing to start with, so whatever the number might be, it's not that important to me personally in reference to my preference for Birkeland's solar model.

There you go again, disclaiming the importance of cosmic rays. I really don't know what you think now. Do you think that they are important to the Sun's processes or not? If not, stop calling on them in your arguments. If yes, then you need to articulate and quantify what this importance is. I don't even know what aspect of the Sun's processess you think depends on them. I did not think or say that you were claiming the Sun is powered by the cosmic ray current, but I don't know what it is you are claiming.

I don't understand why you so averse to putting numbers on the processes.

I'd even do the calculation for you under certain conditions, but I don't even know what sum to do, because I don't know what it is you think is important and how that drives the solar processes. If you could, what would you calculate, and why?

[Cargo]

I wait for the Higgs to produce a Black Hole, Big Bang, Neutron Ball, Icy Comet, or dark-gravity-compressed fusion-mini-star in the lab. So we can test it.

[JHL]

It's essentially this completely irrational aversion to the lab when it works physically against you that makes me believe that then *entire industry of astronomy* has become completely detached from physical reality as we understand it. Nothing in your mythical dark magnetic universe is "tangible" in the lab, nor does it produce any of the necessary observational particle movement patterns over *any scale whatsoever* in a laboratory experiment. Not one.

Yup, but being generous, Higgs has illuminated the congregants anyway with the great truth that a little metal sphere with a power supply actually isn't the Sun, a sin for which any result thereof is automatically invalidated. After all, had the SAFIRE guys thought to construct a proper star, well, then any observable phenomenon produced would have been promptly admitted into the annals, or at least to the vaunted level of spontaneous creation and the magical substances that twirl whole galaxies. Instead they actually had the temerity to use "artificial" energy in order to make their demonstrations with said sphere. Rubes and layabouts, they.

Against this level of wisdom, Michael, are we to nod somberly when another model is floated, in which stars spin all the way around in a second forever or a fundamental measured electron mass prohibits both The Almighty Bang of Creation and the Millions of Universes Model, both of which are still just fine anyway because we'll just redial their math somehow.

Apparently it's who's model is touted, not whether that model has sufficient veracity.

What we need is an enormous grant system to fund the construction of an actual electric star. Then we'll have elevated the discourse to that already nobly achieved by LCDM and a Catholic priest and a fancy calculator and Good Will Hunting standing at a blackboard.

[Michael Mozina]

It's essentially this completely irrational aversion to the lab when it works physically against you that makes me believe that then *entire industry of astronomy* has become completely detached from physical reality as we understand it. Nothing in your mythical dark magnetic universe is "tangible" in the lab, nor does it produce any of the necessary observational particle movement patterns over *any scale whatsoever* in a laboratory experiment. Not one.

Yup, but being generous, Higgs has illuminated the congregants anyway with the great truth that a little metal sphere with a power supply actually isn't the Sun, a sin for which any result thereof is automatically invalidated. After all, had the SAFIRE guys thought to construct a proper star, well, then any observable phenomenon produced would have been promptly admitted into the annals, or at least to the vaunted level of spontaneous creation and the magical substances that twirl whole galaxies. Instead they actually had the temerity to use "artificial" energy in order to make their demonstrations with said sphere. Rubes and layabouts, they.

Against this level of wisdom, Michael, are we to nod somberly when another model is floated, in which stars spin all the way around in a second forever or a fundamental measured electron mass prohibits both The Almighty Bang of Creation and the Millions of Universes Model, both of which are still just fine anyway because we'll just redial their math somehow.

Apparently it's who's model is touted, not whether that model has sufficient veracity.

What we need is an enormous grant system to fund the construction of an actual electric star. Then we'll have elevated the discourse to that already nobly achieved by LCDM and a Catholic priest and a fancy calculator and Good Will Hunting standing at a blackboard.

Bingo!

With all due respect to SAFIRE, in terms of methodical laboratory experimentation, only Birkeland and his team have really ever scientifically and methodically studied both a cathode *and* an anode solar system model in the lab. That's actually rather sad when you think about all the money we've squandered on "dark" stuff research over the last few decades.

The problem for mainstream astronomers and modern day solar physicists, is that Birkeland and his team beat us all to the concept of applying electric fields and circuit theory to objects in space by a full century. In his book, he fully discussed and mathematically modeled charged particle trajectory patterns in such current carrying environments.

The 'scientific grant system", particularly anything related to solar physics or atmospheric planetary physics should be based *entirely* upon "sustained physical laboratory results", in which case circuit theory and solar surface "electric field" theories, should be pretty well funded. They're relatively easy to replicate in a lab and study in the lab with great scientific precision. In terms of plasma physics and experiments we've learned quite a bit in z-machine type, high temperature, "electrical discharge" events, and we've come a long way. In terms of understanding how "current carrying" plasma behaves, we've also come a long way. Learning to apply it all to something as dynamic as the solar atmosphere will be tricky, but only once we grasp how it's actually working in laboratory scaled models in terms of current flow and particle flow patterns, and we compare them to measurements from satellites in space.

Birkeland verified his belief that the sun was also emitting positively charged ions that normally slammed into the walls of his experiments and simply bounced back to the cathode. He noticed that when "fat" was placed along the sides of the wall, it trapped some of the "quicksilver" particles from the cathode surface at those locations. In this way he essentially verified that both high speed electrons and positively charged ions (corpusles) were emitted from the solar surface.

It's a real pity that solar physics research can't reproduce *any* of the important solar and planetary features of of solar system based upon "magnetic reconnection" research in real lab experiments. Why is that?

I mean come on, get scientifically serious and scientifically real! A full *century* ago, these aspects of particle physical movement patterns in the solar atmosphere were *easily* being simulated and replicated, described and *explained* (physically/mathematically) based on circuit theory and charged solar and planetary surfaces.

It seems to me that it's really high time that the solar atmospheric research communities and planetary magnetosphere research communities either deliver a small scale working model of "magnetic reconnection' claims in term of *sustaining* charged particle kinetic energy movement patterns in a solar system/planetary magnetosphere model, or they embrace working laboratory physics that has worked well in the lab to explain high speed solar strahl and charged ion solar wind for more than a full century. Solar physicists and astronomers (not actually the case of planetary physicists) won't do either of those two things, so they're stuck in an imaginary mathematical pseudoscienc-ville called "magnetic reconnection", none of which actually works in the lab with respect to explaining *sustained* solar or planetary particle physics.

I frankly think its *shameful* that Higgsy would talk about any perceived lack of quantification with respect to Birkeland's work, and *personally demand that others do his mathematical bidding on command*, when he cannot even produce so much as a single laboratory lab experiment simulating aurora that produce a working sustained planetary aurora based on 'magnetic reconnection', whereas such things were *easily* explained and simulated for more than a century based on circuit theory.

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

The recent passing of Nereid reminds me of a Saturday afternoon that once I spent working on a spread sheet to try to figure out various average solar density estimates based on various neutron core model configurations at Nereid's personal insistence. When I handed the demanded figures to him, he essentially handwaved at them in a single sentence, and then he promptly came up with yet another math homework assignment. Higgsy shares that same "do my math bidding"/"I'm your mathematical superior" mentality, not that it actually personally even matters to them one iota, or that it matters in terms of actual "science". It's their crude attempt at personal intimidation I suppose.

[JHL]

The 'scientific grant system", particularly anything related to solar physics or atmospheric planetary physics should be based *entirely* upon "sustained physical laboratory results", in which case circuit theory and solar surface "electric field" theories, should be pretty well funded. They're relatively easy to replicate in a lab and study in the lab with great scientific precision. In terms of plasma physics and experiments we've learned quite a bit in z-machine type, high temperature, "electrical discharge" events, and we've come a long way. In terms of understanding how "current carrying" plasma behaves, we've also come a long way. Learning to apply it all to something as dynamic as the solar atmosphere will be tricky, but only once we grasp how it's actually working in laboratory scaled models in terms of current flow and particle flow patterns, and we compare them to measurements from satellites in space.

Supposing that LCDM and EU are plausible, if not in the whole at least in part, imagine the different lay of the land if the latter was funded as well as the former. Set the purported science aside and just conceive of the academic landscape.

If 2020 taught us anything, coincidentally, it's that you can walk an elephant down main street and various establishments can convince some half of observers that it's a kitten. If for no other reason than the ring of truth that emanated from debunked standard model comets from a conjectured Ort Cloud - trillions of which targeted Earth and nothing else - and the constancy of the historical squatterman, the EU easily warrants investigation.

Instead we get the rude hubris of drive-by critics whose colossal umbrage at a workable theory somehow proves true the model that centers on spontaneous existence and 2/3 of the stuff made being invisible to every observation a hundred light years away except to a very, very weak force.

[Michael Mozina]

Well, after thousands of words, you have proven to your own satisfaction and to mine that Birkeland's solar lab model and SAFIRE are like the Sun in that they are all approximately speherical.

Even *that* is more than your "stardard" model does properly!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 57068.html

Neither lab model has any other feature which represents the Sun's processes quantitatively.

What are you even talking about? It certainly does represent the process *physically*, and generates high speed particles which can be measured quantitatively in every conceivable way. All it takes is money and effort.

If you can point to any single aspect of Birkeland's description of his lab model, that gives us any quantitative insight at all into the underlying physical processes of the Sun that we don't already have from observations, I'll look at it again.

You didn't really "look" at any of his math as far as I can tell. What difference did any of it have on you personally in terms of the merits of his model, and why?

In such a case, you should describe exactly what Birkeland found, referencing the page number on which we find the description, and setting out what that means quantitatively at the scale of the Sun (so setting out voltages, currents, magnetic fields, temperatures etc, whatever is relevant to the specific insight you are claiming.)

I already pointed out to you that he estimated the voltage (based any scaling his lab experiments) at about 600 million volts. You trivially handwaved at that issue, along with all the quantified figures in his entire book.

I have just put four quotes together from your last post or two. When pressed to quantify the importance of cosmic rays to the Sun's processes, you go into obfuscation mode,

No, you went to mathematical dictator mode, *demanding* that I personally do your mathematical bidding! Get *over* yourself.

and pretend that it doesn't matter a jot so far as you are concerned in 4).

It ultimately *does not* matter to me personally whether the sun internally creates the majority of the "electrical tension", or the incoming cosmic rays cause the majority of the tension between the surface of the sun and "space". Birkeland's model is an *internally* powered model, so the *amount* of external current flowing into the solar system isn't even all that relevant to my personal preference for Birkeland's cathode solar model. I'm simply noting that we've already *measured* in space (flying electric ions), something which Birkeland 'predicted' a century ago based on "working simulations". His model doesn't just predict flying 'electrons' in the solar atmosphere, it's predicts that space contains most of it's mass in flying electric *ions* between the stars in space, and some of them are likely to be high energy particles.

But in 1), 2) and 3), you are in full Rotweiler mode, trying to belabour me with the importance of the cosmic rays, and accusing me of ignoring them.

You do ignore them in terms of explaining solar system processes. Your model treats "space" as being electrically neutral, when in fact it's high speed positively charged environment at the *fastest* scales.

You need to make your mind up as to whether they matter or not,

They matter in the sense that Birkeland's model ultimately predicts that space is full of flying electric ions, and the sun emits cathode rays, both of which are verified by satellites in space.

if they do matter you need to be able to articulate what exactly it is that they do, because as sure as the Earth turns you haven't done that yet.

They demonstrate two key "assumptions" that Birkeland made, first that the sun acts as a "cathode" with respect to something he called 'space', and it shows that 'space' is ultimately a non-neutral environment at it's fastest scales. Comic rays are *overwhelmingly* positively charged and nothing else carries current around the universe that fast.

Birkeland used the term "rays" with respect to positively charged particles too, and indeed we observe high speed ions traveling from the sun at nearly a 1/3 of the speed of light during some solar flare events, far faster than solar wind.

Now once and for all, I am not denying the cosmic ray flux.

Where did you 'factor it in" anywhere in terms of "physically* into your solar model? When you claim the sun's atmosphere is 'net neutral', how do you offset it?

I am trying to ascertain what importance you think it has in the Sun's processes, something that only you can tell me as it's uniquely your idea.

The concept that the universe is filled with flying electric ions is *not* my idea. Stop saying that! You're misrepresenting his model *entirely*.

Whatever the figure might be, I know for a fact that *mainstream* models essentially ignore it for all intents and purposes and never discuss the amount of "current" it represents in terms of net positive charges flowing into the solar system.

The first step in deciding if your idea has any merit is for you to articulate clearly what you think is going on with the Sun so far as the cosmic rays go. The second step is to take the known flux and to calculate whether it does what you think it does. Both of those are jobs for you.

I'm not a paid astrophysicist, so these aren't my "jobs" at all. They're simply mathematical busy work that you personally would like to see me do, not that it would even matter to you one iota in the first place.

If are unwilling or unable to do that, your repeated appeal to cosmic rays is not just impotent, but eventually becomes dishonest.

Woah. What's 'dishonest' is trying to dumb down the scientific importance of successful laboratory simulations over "hypothetical mathematical models". Your new and improved 3D "magnetic reconnection" mathematical models cannot and will not ever produce any *sustained* high speed particle movements, not a single one of those sustained processes which are necessary to produce full sphere solar strahl, solar wind, planetary aurora, etc. None of your MRx nonsense produces *sustained* particle physical processes in the first place in a real lab experiment! Doesn't it bother you that you can't even simulate a *sustained* planetary aurora based on MRx in a real lab experiment? How physically useless is your 3D math anyway?

The mere existence of light speed cosmic rays which are overwhelmingly positively charged, *falsifies* any solar model that treats "space" as being a "net neutral" environment, until and unless it accounts for anything that might "offset" that continuous flow of positively charged high speed particles into our solar system.

This is what Birkeland had to say about the Sun having a negative charge with respect to space:

"It is at present not easy to see how a negative tension should be continually created by the sun in relation to space.

A century ago it wasn't easy to see how a "negative tension' might be created and sustained. Now you have at *at least* two, and a couple more I can think of, to explain it, starting with cosmic rays and the "tension" they create. They're high speed positively charged particles which constantly electrically interact with our solar system.

What is the charge of "space" itself at it's very fastest scales (speed of light particles)?

It is of course possible to imagine that a surplus of positive ions is always being carried away from the sun

Well, we do measure positively charged ions, but you'd have to compare them to the movement patterns of electron strahl traveling at higher speeds than solar wind speeds.

or that negative ions are always being carried towards the sun,

We don't really seem to see a lot of evidence to support that, although it's possible that inbound currents return near the poles.

and that the negative tension is produced in this manner; and that the balance is maintained to some extent by distinct disruptive discharges, as we have presupposed."

About the *only* physical process you can hope to reproduce with 'magnetic reconnection', is a short duration "burst" akin to a 'disruptive discharge"/electrical discharge (Dungey) in a real lab experiment, but even that reveals the fact that you need *enormous* amounts of electrical current to produce them.

There is no mention here of space being positively charged, but only of the Sun being negatively charged,

“It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds.

The term "all kinds" of flying electric ions would certainly include 'cosmic rays'. How does your mainstream solar model handle that, and where does it predict it?

for which he proposes the mechanisms of positive ions streaming away from the Sun,

Yes, he presupposes that our sun *and every other sun* sometimes emits positively charged ions, sometimes (solar flares) with many times the kinetic energy of a typical strahl electron. I'm sure he's quite aware of the implications of the existence of other suns, which is why he's talking about "space" and it's electrical makeup.

If you look at it purely in terms of kinetic energy, you're going to create at least some solar flare events which emit positively charged ions at very high speeds, maybe even cosmic ray speeds in some instances. If all suns do that, then there's a "natural" explanation for it with Birkeland's model too. They're likely to hold and carry around *far more* kinetic energy than even a typical "strahl" electron from the sun, let alone a solar wind electron.

and electrons (or negative ions) streaming into the Sun.

The places we're likely to see that are places where the so called "open magnetic lines" actually return back to their point of origin. I'm sure the current flow patterns in the solar atmosphere are actually quite complex.

No mention of positive ions flowing into the Sun.

If space is full of charged particles, they all flow into and through our solar system. You seem to be trying to condemn him for not explicitly using the term "cosmic rays", instead of "flying electric ions of all types". Sorry, but your "legalese" with respect to his statements is absurd.

Even *if* Birkeland never imagined the implications of finding out that the fastest and most energetic charged particles in and around our solar system are overwhelmingly positively charged, that is something we know to be true today from the Voyager missions.

If you're trying to figure out how that "tension' is maintained, it might be important to know how much is "maintained" by the sun, and how much is maintained by cosmic rays.

Therefore, Birkeland's proposed mechanism does not involve positive ions flowing into the Sun (or being in the Sun's vicinity).

That's completely false. Birkeland was well aware that our own galaxy contained millions of sun, all contributing to 'flying electric ions', and any such environment produces a steady stream of charged particles flowing *into* our solar system from the outside. I don't recall him being aware that cosmic rays were overwhelmingly positively charged however, so I'm not sure how or if that figured into this model.

Have you actually read his book? You will note that he acknowledges that the source of the 600MV is not obvious.

Well, it's bit more obvious now IMO. It doesn't all have to be generated *internally* to start with.

You will also note at the conclusion of this section that he acknowledges that he has no viable proposal for the 600MV, falling back on a possible extension to Maxwell's equations which has never transpired.

What has transpired however is a much clearer picture of the solar system plasma movements, including the *higher* concentration of cosmic rays outside of the heliosphere.

Whether or not Birkeland could fully explain the existence of the field itself, he could certainly predict it's voltage. Astronomers have attempted to discuss the 'charge' of the surface of the photosphere only based on gravitational separation, but I can't recall them ever estimating the "charge' of space itself, other that to "assume" it's net charge neutral.

What "offsets" the cathode rays and keeps the sides of the box at a "constant charge" is the fact that the sides of the box are conducting and connected by a sodding great copper wire to one terminal of a voltage generator, the other terminal of which is connected by another great sodding wire to the metal sphere. There is no analogue of cosmic rays in the lab model.

Ya there was. Did you read the whole discussion about quicksilver particles sticking to the fat they put around the glass of the experiment. He demonstrated that not only was the cathode surface emitting electrons, it was emitting positively charged pieces of the cathode out into space.

His model specifically predicts that electrical discharges in stellar atmosphere can and do produce high speed ions, which flow *in* at the heliosphere, and out from the surface. Most if any of the net current flow won't be traveling at solar wind speeds, it will be traveling at cosmic ray speeds and solar strahl/rays/beam speeds.

It ultimately doesn't matter to me *how much* if any current might be coming into the sun from the galaxy since I assume that the sun is internally powered to start with. You're making sound as though the number that I come up with must have some great relevance to powering the sun. I didn't even suggest such a thing to start with, so whatever the number might be, it's not that important to me personally in reference to my preference for Birkeland's solar model.

There you go again, disclaiming the importance of cosmic rays.

There you go again making a *strawman* out of my statements. Sheesh. I didn't 'disclaim' their importance, I simply noted their importance and relevance to *all possible* solar models. Whatever solar model your heart fancies, it needs to include the net electrical effect of cosmic rays on our solar system.

The existence of cosmic rays, and the fact they are *overwhelmingly positively charged* is relevant to Birkeland's cathode model, just as it's relevant to any model. In his case, it could go a ways to explaining how and why that 600MV is maintained over time.

I really don't know what you think now. Do you think that they are important to the Sun's processes or not? If not, stop calling on them in your arguments.

Fully explaining that 600MV is pretty much a requirement of any cathode solar model, so in that sense it's important, but the exact figure wouldn't change my preference for a circuit based, charged surface based cathode solar model. Their mere existence only supports my preference for a cathode model IMO.

If yes, then you need to articulate and quantify what this importance is.

It's certainly a relevant *scientific* question, but if the number is *particularly* relevant to you personally, let's see your math.

It technically doesn't matter to me if the sun's produces most of the tension, but it's also quite clear a century after Birkeland, that cosmic rays are the fastest speed particles in the universe, they are *overwhelmingly* positively charged, so it would be *naive* to ignore that part of the kinetic energy and charged particle part of the process.

I don't even know what aspect of the Sun's processess you think depends on them.

Technically everything depends on their being a 600MV+ charge difference between the solar surface and a "space" that Birkeland describes as being filled with flying charged ions.

I did not think or say that you were claiming the Sun is powered by the cosmic ray current, but I don't know what it is you are claiming.

Well, I suppose I'm "claiming" that your precious 'standard' (electrically brain dead) model of the sun is "incomplete" because it doesn't account for them, or anything else in a real laboratory experiment.

I would also "assume" than any 'cathode' solar model would need to consider and incorporate them as well, so it has the same net effect on *all* solar models.

I don't understand why you so averse to putting numbers on the processes.

I'm not "averse" putting numbers any any process you'd like so long as *you're* the one doing the work. As I mentioned, Nereid personally burned me out on the "do my mathematical busy work" routine, when he handwaved at an afternoon of my time in a single sentence and promptly gave me another math assignment.

I personally think that astronomers try to mathematically intimidate anyone and everyone who disagrees with them, even (and especially) when the disagreement is over a *qualitative* claim being made, like the existence of dark stuff, or the belief that MRx produces *sustained* particle movement processes over extending periods of time.

I'd even do the calculation for you under certain conditions, but I don't even know what sum to do, because I don't know what it is you think is important and how that drives the solar processes. If you could, what would you calculate, and why?

What exactly do you wish to know and why? Which of Birkeland's mathematical presentations did you find compelling and why?

Again, I ask you quite honestly, and quite bluntly. Doesn't it bother you one bit when you read Birkeland's book that you are not able to recreate *any* of the *sustained* particle movement processes in the lab based on "magnetic reconnection"? Does that really not bother you, because it certainly bothers me. I've had a prefectly logical and rational explanation for that charged particle movement pattern since before I was even born, along with a comprehensive set of experiments and beautiful mathematical models based on circuit theory.

Frankly Higgsy I simply don't see how you rationalize away the fact that not only can you *not* simulate a sustained high energy process in the lab with magnetic reconnection. If Alfven hadn't called that whole concept pseudoscience it wouldn't be so bad, but he spent his entire career and lifetime applying *circuit* theory to events in space and he publicly rejected your beliefs.

I don't see any laboratory justification for even claiming that ordinary induction and magnetic reconnection are different physical processes in plasma. I certainly see nothing remotely like a "sustained" high energy process based on 'magnetic reconnection".

The fact you cannot produce these simple things in the lab is *damning* to your beliefs, and it always will be.

[Michael Mozina]

Instead we get the rude hubris of drive-by critics whose colossal umbrage at a workable theory somehow proves true the model that centers on spontaneous existence and 2/3 of the stuff made being invisible to every observation a hundred light years away except to a very, very weak force.

Alas it's more like 95 percent invisible, *and* there's still a five+ sigma problem with the Hubble constant between the SN1A data and Planck estimates so that number could continue to grow.

What I *really* don't understand is astronomers lack of respect for, and the lack of engagement in *successful* laboratory physics. If Birkeland had not created high speed solar strahl and positively charged ions moving away from the cathode surface, and he didn't recreate a working aurora, or even if the mainstream could create these things based on MRx, I'd understand their attitude.

As it stands however, the lack of a meaningful working simulation of any sustained solar system process tells you everything that you need to know about their new and improved 3D mathematical models of "magnetic reconnection". They have no physical or practical application in real lab experiments.

The sad fact is that not only is a full 95 percent of their universe "dark" to them, most of the rest of their math it's based on what Alfven called "pseudoscience", and which fails to produce anything useful in the lab. They're typically drive by critics who prefer and peddle pseudoscience and metaphysics, any and all lab results be damned.

[JHL]

What I *really* don't understand is astronomers lack of respect for, and the lack of engagement in *successful* laboratory physics.

Someone once said that in an empire of lies the truth is treason, which is an obvious human phenomenon. While I don't think it's fair or reasonable to view the LCDM enterprise as a conscious lie, it is an empire and it is an enterprise, and those are the natural aspects of much or all established power.

We conclude that personal attacks are therefore two generations from pertinence and honesty: They come from impetus and instinct - that being the way of institutional drift - and they do not involve the science they claim to own.

And they're bad form and rude and should be dealt with as such. If they were honest they would defer to what they do not know and they would especially defer to contrast. But that takes integrity, which takes us back to the nature of truth and whether or not to respect it.

[Earl Sinclair]

He's exactly right when he mentions that the opponents hand-wave then assign you homework. "They" can come up with any damn-fool idea and insist that YOU "debunk" it - completely ignoring the onus-of-proof principle.

Isaac Newton had no time for such nonsense and there's a quote with him saying he didn't have time to debunk every hypothesis that was mailed to him.

Modern "scientists" today are full of ridiculous claims - and their interest is to PROVE their claims to be true, rather than DISPROVE them. You can tell they have a non-rational basis for their hypotheses because they get so mad when questioned. They ascribe bad motives to their opponents, and devolve inevitably ( if not immediately ) into non-rational argumentation.

"Professor" Dave STARTS with ridicule and abuse - most other "scientists" are more subtle.

And, most "scientists" - like "ordinary" humans LOVE their baubles and shiny objects. Why would they NOT like a $3 bizillion-dollar super-duper-trooper-collider thingie? It ensures permanent employment and lots of trips around the world.


Earl

[Michael Mozina]

"Professor" Dave STARTS with ridicule and abuse - most other "scientists" are more subtle.

It's hard to even think of Dave and his ilk as 'scientists' when their public ridicule and abuse toward ideas and experiments that they don't even understand, betrays any sense of scientific objectivity. Dave never even mentioned Kristian Birkeland who was certainly the first "electric universe" proponent to ever fire up his ideas in a real lab experiment, albeit a tiny one galaxy universe. Birkeland didn't live long enough to see the discovery of additional galaxies in space, but I suspect it would not have surprised him. "Electric Universe" theory certainly didn't start with Juergens, and Juergens never performed any laboratory experiments involving his anode solar model that I'm aware of. Why did Dave fixate on Juergens and Thornhill when discussing an 'electric universe'? Shrug.....

I guess Dave just saw a Thunderbolt's video on youtube one afternoon and had a personal cow.

The part that I struggle with the most about astronomy is the fact that astronomy has become almost *completely* detached from physical reality and from laboratory experiments that actually produce tangible positive results. At the level of 'cosmology' theory, their various 'dark' experiments have been total and complete bust for the last few decades, not just the last few experiments. On the other hand, the standard model of particle physics passed every conceivable mathematical "test" they could throw at it at LHC, yet that mathematical triumph of the standard particle physics model and those repeated failures of their own mathematical models doesn't seem to be enough for astronomers to embrace a description of our universe *without* exotic forms of matter and energy. I don't think that astronomers really care about math at all frankly unless and until it suits them personally, typically for the purpose of trying to demonstrate their mathematical superiority over anyone who dares to question the merits of their various belief systems. They certainly don't care about the fact that their various mathematical models of "dark matter" have failed test after test after countless (I've literally lost count now) test for *decades*. When the math works against them, like their five+ sigma problem with the Hubble constant, they shrug, and essentially ignore the glaring problem. In spite of 95 percent 'gap filler', their own model isn't even *internally consistent*. From the standpoint of logic and common sense, the LCDM model makes no scientific sense whatsoever.

Ask them for some simple demonstrations of concept, and you can't get a straight answer. I've never for instance seen any astronomer cite a real series of laboratory experiments demonstrating any unique physical differences between ordinary induction in plasma, and what they're calling 'magnetic reconnection' as a result of magnetic field topology changes in a conductor like plasma. Ask them where 'dark energy' comes from, and you usually get dead silence, or "We don't know" or an answer that is a complete deflection from the question. In terms of mass/energy, "dark energy" is most of their model and they can't explain the first thing about it, starting with where it comes from, and how it retains a constant density throughout expansion. Those are *basic* scientific questions that they can't even begin to answer. You can't get any real consensus from them anymore on *which* DM mathematical model they'll agree to, and most of their "popular" ones were falsified at LHC and elsewhere, so it's essentially nothing more than an exotic matter of the gaps claim. I've honestly lost count how many times their various models failed to pan out in some experiment or another.

The whole LCDM (big bang) belief system is based on metaphysical and pseudoscientific quicksand. Worse still, astronomers have a bad case of confirmation bias. Even when their model blows observational chunks with respect to finding far more massive and "mature" galaxies and quasars in the distant universe than their "galaxy evolution" models "predict", they simply sweep all those *observational* failures of their model right under the rug and ignore those problems, or try to dream up ways to "seed" the early universe with "black holes" to somehow make up the difference.

If their LCDM model had any real 'predictive' usefulness, and it was internally consistent, they wouldn't have a five+ sigma problem with their Hubble constant. The expansion model has *never* been predictively useful, which is how we ended up with 'dark energy' the last time it blew observational chunks.

The whole "magnetic reconnection" model associated with astronomy today is essentially *useless* in the lab in terms of producing anything *remotely* like a *sustained* charged particle acceleration process. "Magnetic reconnection' experiments can't produce sustained solar strahl (beams/rays). They can't produce *sustained* particle acceleration at all in fact, certainly not without electric fields driving the particle movement parade. Meanwhile Birkeland's circuit theory model produces electron beams/cathode rays/solar strahl, right out of the box. There's your "sign".

When it comes to actual laboratory proof of concept, astronomers cannot even simulate something as basic and simple as a *sustained* planetary aurora based on 'magnetic reconnection', yet they continue to thumb their nose at circuit theory in spite of it's successful laboratory track record for more than a full *century*!

I think it's really sad that intelligent people like Nereid go to their graves believing in metaphysical and pseudoscientific nonsense when the physical explanations are actually pretty simple to understand, and easy to demonstrate in the lab, and they've been experimented with, and written about for more than a *century* now.

[Higgsy]

In such a case, you should describe exactly what Birkeland found, referencing the page number on which we find the description, and setting out what that means quantitatively at the scale of the Sun (so setting out voltages, currents, magnetic fields, temperatures etc, whatever is relevant to the specific insight you are claiming.)

I already pointed out to you that he estimated the voltage (based any scaling his lab experiments) at about 600 million volts. You trivially handwaved at that issue, along with all the quantified figures in his entire book.

Well, that hasn't turned out very well for Birkeland, has it, seeing as there is absolutely no evidence for there being a voltage of 600MV at the Sun, and neither he nor anyone else can propose a viable mechansim for maintaining this 600MV.

It ultimately *does not* matter to me personally whether the sun internally creates the majority of the "electrical tension", or the incoming cosmic rays cause the majority of the tension between the surface of the sun and "space". Birkeland's model is an *internally* powered model, so the *amount* of external current flowing into the solar system isn't even all that relevant to my personal preference for Birkeland's cathode solar model.

How do you propose that either the sun "internally creates the majority of the "electrical tension"" or "cosmic rays cause the majority of the tension between the surface of the sun and "space""? With regard to the first, are you suggesting that nuclear fusion violates charge conservation? With regard to the latter, this plays to the very point I've been making, which is that you haven't shown (nor has anyone else, because no-one else is even suggesting it) how the known cosmic ray flux could possibly create 600MV at the Sun. Both of your mechanisms are broken.

His model doesn't just predict flying 'electrons' in the solar atmosphere, it's predicts that space contains most of it's mass in flying electric *ions* between the stars in space, and some of them are likely to be high energy particles.

Of course most of the baryonic mass in the ISM is in nucleons, some of which are positive. That's a trivial observation. We weren't talking about mass, we're talking about charge.

But in 1), 2) and 3), you are in full Rotweiler mode, trying to belabour me with the importance of the cosmic rays, and accusing me of ignoring them.

You do ignore them in terms of explaining solar system processes. Your model treats "space" as being electrically neutral, when in fact it's high speed positively charged environment at the *fastest* scales.

a) you refuse to show that the cosmic ray flux makes space "positively" charged. because you refuse to compare the magnitude of the cosmic ray flux with the density of all the ions and electrons present in the solar system, which is what matters here and b) you keep referring to the speed of these particles, which is utterly irrelevant if what you are concerned about is the space charge they create. The charge is totally indepencent of the particle k.e..

You need to make your mind up as to whether they matter or not,

They matter in the sense that Birkeland's model ultimately predicts that space is full of flying electric ions, and the sun emits cathode rays, both of which are verified by satellites in space.

Well, duh.

I hate this expression but it's the only that'll do here.

if they do matter you need to be able to articulate what exactly it is that they do, because as sure as the Earth turns you haven't done that yet.

They demonstrate two key "assumptions" that Birkeland made, first that the sun acts as a "cathode" with respect to something he called 'space', and it shows that 'space' is ultimately a non-neutral environment at it's fastest scales.

"Fastest scales"? Speed is irrelevant to charge. I don't believe that cosmic rays are at all efficacious in making the Sun negative (the density of cosmic rays in the Sun's environment is a minute proportion of the particles in the Sun's vicinity, but there is another reason why any spherical cloud of positive charged particles around the Sun, even it it were to be a gazillion times denser than the cosmic rays, would not contribute to the electric field at the Sun's surface one jot.

Comic rays are *overwhelmingly* positively charged and nothing else carries current around the universe that fast.

Hmm - look up radio synchotron astronomy - there are lots of relativistic electrons in the ISM.

Now once and for all, I am not denying the cosmic ray flux.

Where did you 'factor it in" anywhere in terms of "physically* into your solar model?

My solar model? I don't have a personal solar model. They are not factored into the solar model, because they are utterly irrelevant to solar processes. The cosmic ray current into the Sun is tiny, and for practical purposes can be ignored, and the electric field at the Sun's surface as a consequence of cosmic rays is zero.

I am trying to ascertain what importance you think it has in the Sun's processes, something that only you can tell me as it's uniquely your idea.

The concept that the universe is filled with flying electric ions is *not* my idea.

No, but the idea that cosmic rays are somehow important to the Sun's process is your idea, and yours alone. Own it or disown it, but don't hide behind Birkeland who never claimed such a thing.

Whatever the figure might be, I know for a fact that *mainstream* models essentially ignore it for all intents and purposes and never discuss the amount of "current" it represents in terms of net positive charges flowing into the solar system.

Indeed, it is ignored because it is irrelevant to the Sun's processes. Unless the cosmic rays are absorbed in the solar system, say by the Sun, they flow right out again, there is no charge accumulation. Even if they create a net space charge, it has no relevance at the Sun's surface.

The first step in deciding if your idea has any merit is for you to articulate clearly what you think is going on with the Sun so far as the cosmic rays go. The second step is to take the known flux and to calculate whether it does what you think it does. Both of those are jobs for you.

I'm not a paid astrophysicist, so these aren't my "jobs" at all. They're simply mathematical busy work that you personally would like to see me do, not that it would even matter to you one iota in the first place.

I'm simply asking you to do what all physicists do when they propose an idea. I'm paying you the compliment of treating you for the moment as though you are an astrophysicist, instead of someone dressing up and pretending you're one. What's the alternative to my asking you to defend your assertion? Just wave by every unworkable idea that you have?

The mere existence of light speed cosmic rays which are overwhelmingly positively charged, *falsifies* any solar model that treats "space" as being a "net neutral" environment, until and unless it accounts for anything that might "offset" that continuous flow of positively charged high speed particles into our solar system.

Show me how "The mere existence of light speed cosmic rays which are overwhelmingly positively charged, *falsifies* any solar model that treats "space" as being a "net neutral" environment". I don't believe you.

This is what Birkeland had to say about the Sun having a negative charge with respect to space:

"It is at present not easy to see how a negative tension should be continually created by the sun in relation to space.

A century ago it wasn't easy to see how a "negative tension' might be created and sustained.

And that is still true - in fact truer than ever because after all the various solar experiments over the last five decades there is no evidence for 600MV at the Sun and even less evidence for a mechanism for producing it.

Now you have at *at least* two, and a couple more I can think of, to explain it, starting with cosmic rays and the "tension" they create. They're high speed positively charged particles which constantly electrically interact with our solar system.

Two? What two? Cosmic rays cannot produce any electric field at the Sun. You haven't shown how they could do. And the speed is irrelevant.

No mention of positive ions flowing into the Sun.

If space is full of charged particles, they all flow into and through our solar system. You seem to be trying to condemn him for not explicitly using the term "cosmic rays", instead of "flying electric ions of all types". Sorry, but your "legalese" with respect to his statements is absurd.

He is trying to come up with a mechanism for his 600MV. The mechanisms he proposes are positive ions flowing out of the Sun or electrons flowing into the Sun, because those two mechanisms, should they exist in a net manner, would charge the Sun negatively. Poitive ions flowing into the Sun, would offset them, and charge the Sun positively, so they cannot contribute to his explanation. In fact, they work against it. It's not difficult to see.

If you're trying to figure out how that "tension' is maintained, it might be important to know how much is "maintained" by the sun, and how much is maintained by cosmic rays.

I'm not trying to figure out how the "tension" is maintained , because I don't think that there is such a tension in the first place, or at least no-one has made a compelling case for it. As for how much you think is maintained by the Sun and how much by cosmic rays, well, you'll have to propose a working mechanism for both, as I can't see how either fusion or cosmic rays creates and maintains 600MV at the Sun.

Have you actually read his book? You will note that he acknowledges that the source of the 600MV is not obvious.

Well, it's bit more obvious now IMO.

It's a bit less obvious now. If you disagree you should be able to tell me exactly how the 600MV is maintained.

Whether or not Birkeland could fully explain the existence of the field itself, he could certainly predict it's voltage.

Well, he did predict a voltage and so far he seems to have been wrong.

Astronomers have attempted to discuss the 'charge' of the surface of the photosphere only based on gravitational separation, but I can't recall them ever estimating the "charge' of space itself, other that to "assume" it's net charge neutral.

I don't recall you estimating it either, and I don't recall any measurements that indicate a net charge anywhere in the Sun's environment. If you have estimated the net charge of "space" perhaps you can give me a link to where you did.

What "offsets" the cathode rays and keeps the sides of the box at a "constant charge" is the fact that the sides of the box are conducting and connected by a sodding great copper wire to one terminal of a voltage generator, the other terminal of which is connected by another great sodding wire to the metal sphere. There is no analogue of cosmic rays in the lab model.

Ya there was. Did you read the whole discussion about quicksilver particles sticking to the fat they put around the glass of the experiment. He demonstrated that not only was the cathode surface emitting electrons, it was emitting positively charged pieces of the cathode out into space.

What makes you think they were positive? Why would positive ions be emitted from a cathode? Have you ever heard of sputtering?

The existence of cosmic rays, and the fact they are *overwhelmingly positively charged* is relevant to Birkeland's cathode model, just as it's relevant to any model. In his case, it could go a ways to explaining how and why that 600MV is maintained over time.

Would they? How would they do that?

Fully explaining that 600MV is pretty much a requirement of any cathode solar model...

Yep. When can we expect you to start?

It technically doesn't matter to me if the sun's produces most of the tension, but it's also quite clear a century after Birkeland, that cosmic rays are the fastest speed particles in the universe, they are *overwhelmingly* positively charged, so it would be *naive* to ignore that part of the kinetic energy and charged particle part of the process.

The other thing you need to do is explain why you're banging on about kinetic energy.

Technically everything depends on their being a 600MV+ charge difference between the solar surface and a "space" that Birkeland describes as being filled with flying charged ions.

Great, so when can we expect you to explain how that voltage is maintained?

[JHL]

Great, so when can we expect you to explain how that voltage is maintained?

I'd guess somewhat before dark matter is explained. Or significantly before the spontaneous origin of everything is.

Sorry, are gotcha questions not how science is done? Not clear so just checking.

[Higgsy]

Great, so when can we expect you to explain how that voltage is maintained?

I'd guess somewhat before dark matter is explained.

The two cases aren't even remotely similar, unless you haven't been paying attention.

In the case of dark matter, we have multiple lines of independent observational evidence for the existence of weakly interacting matter in the Universe, eg galaxy rotation curves, gravitational lensing, galaxy cluster dynamics, early Sachs-Wolfe effect, cluster interaction effects, flatness of the Universe, CMB anisotropy statistics and so on.

In the case of the 600MV at the Sun, subject to Michael or you or Thornhill or Scott or someone else coming up with something, we appear to have neither cause nor effect - no observations which require 600MV at the Sun in order to be explained and no viable mechanism that would produce it either.

[JHL]

The two cases aren't even remotely similar, unless you haven't been paying attention.

Declares you while not paying attention. What is dark matter, Higgs? And when will we know what it is, just to make sure you don't avoid the question. And to state it a third time just to be sure, how does it physically constitute the great majority of the universe?

In the case of dark matter, we have multiple lines of independent observational evidence for the existence of weakly interacting matter in the Universe, eg galaxy rotation curves, gravitational lensing, galaxy cluster dynamics, early Sachs-Wolfe effect, cluster interaction effects, flatness of the Universe, CMB anisotropy statistics and so on.

In the case of the 600MV at the Sun, subject to Michael or you or Thornhill or Scott or someone else coming up with something, we appear to have neither cause nor effect - no observations which require 600MV at the Sun in order to be explained and no viable mechanism that would produce it either.

Oops, fourth time: No cheating by citing the model that resembles reality that resembles the model ad infinitum.

When can we have our answer, Higgsy? Judged from your usual bloviating, time appears to be of the essence.

So when?

[Higgsy]

The two cases aren't even remotely similar, unless you haven't been paying attention.

Declares you while not paying attention. What is dark matter, Higgs? And when will we know what it is, just to make sure you don't avoid the question. And to state it a third time just to be sure, how does it physically constitute the great majority of the universe?

In the case of dark matter, we have multiple lines of independent observational evidence for the existence of weakly interacting matter in the Universe, eg galaxy rotation curves, gravitational lensing, galaxy cluster dynamics, early Sachs-Wolfe effect, cluster interaction effects, flatness of the Universe, CMB anisotropy statistics and so on.

In the case of the 600MV at the Sun, subject to Michael or you or Thornhill or Scott or someone else coming up with something, we appear to have neither cause nor effect - no observations which require 600MV at the Sun in order to be explained and no viable mechanism that would produce it either.

Oops, fourth time: No cheating by citing the model that resembles reality that resembles the model ad infinitum.

When can we have our answer, Higgsy? Judged from your usual bloviating, time appears to be of the essence.

So when?

What is dark matter? I don't know, nor does anyone else at the moment, but I think it is there based on many independent observations, some of which are listed above. But you knew that already.
When will we know what it is? When it is identified in the lab.
How does it physically constitute the great majority of the universe? Meaningless question.

But you have persuaded me to abandon the theory of dark matter by proposing an alternative which explains the galaxy rotation curves, gravitational lensing, galaxy cluster dynamics, early Sachs-Wolfe effect, cluster interaction effects, flatness of the Universe, CMB anisotropy statistics and so on perfectly. Oh wait... You didn't.

No cheating by citing the model that resembles reality that resembles the model ad infinitum.

You think the existence of dark matter is predicated entirely on structure evolution modelling? You need to learn some more science.

Perhaps one of these days some actual science might smuggle itself into your posts in place of the relentless content-free rhetoric and posturing, but I'm not holding my breath.