But those of us who believe the Cathode Sun model, like Birkeland's terella apparently showed, is a better Electric Sun model, would like to be certain that both models are tested at little or no additional expense.
And everyone would like for the specs for the experiment to be posted on this site asap so we can all critique it to prevent potential flaws etc.
Please join us in asking the EU team to test both models and to post the specs in advance for critiquing.
Nick C, is Monty aware of our request to include the cathode model in his experiment and to post the specs for the experiment on this site for critiquing? And can someone tell us his response?
nick c
Re: SAFIRE Project
Lloyd wrote: Nick C, is Monty aware of our request to include the cathode model in his experiment and to post the specs for the experiment on this site for critiquing? And can someone tell us his response?
hi Lloyd, Sorry, I don't know.
Lloyd
Re: SAFIRE Project
I hear now that both models will definitely be tested, but what we still don't know is if the specs for the experiment will be posted on this site in advance for critiquing, in case anyone spots any important flaws.
CharlesChandler
Re: SAFIRE Project
Lloyd wrote: I hear now that both models will definitely be tested...
That isn't what I heard in any of my correspondences with people involved, which is why I stopped corresponding with them. They're trying to make it sound like they're doing a fully scientific, unbiased set of experiments, showing no preference for any existing model. But then this was in the update that they just sent out:
The SAFIRE Project will first consider the model of the Electric Sun (ES), as put forward by Wal Thornhill, Don Scott, and Ralph Jeurgens.
So they're going to test the anode model. Nice to hear that they got funding. But it's clear now that they didn't publish their plans in advance, so that they could be reviewed before any money was spent. And it's clear that they're not pursuing an objective, unbiased study of possible EM configurations — they're pursuing the anode model. What a surprise.
I don't have any problem with people explicitly stating that they're vested in a particular model. I'm sold on the cathode model. But if they test just one configuration, and then represent it as THE model, it will only prove that their method is flawed. They have to state their assumptions, and the limitations of their method, or they'll get chewed up, by people outside & inside the EU community.
Bomb20
Re: SAFIRE Project
What do we have?
One group of scientists is in favour of the Anode model, has done a lot of own work and got funding for the SAFIRE project. Now they are testing their own model FIRST - I think this is totally justified and the normal way of action! Why should they abandon their own plans and give ANOTHER model the first try - and even FOR FREE?
Another group thinks this way is wrong and the Cathode model is the correct choice. They could create and start funding their own project if they can not wait for the results of the first test of the first group.
CC, even if you are so smart as you think how can you know 100% that you are on the right track? Did you ever consider that both models could be wrong and the real electric sun could work in a more complicated or very different manner compared to simple Anode or Cathode ideas?
Furthermore you should keep in mind that you are demanding to test your very own model with money which was most-likely given under certain pre-conditions to the Thunderbolts!
Also you sound a bit too shrill with your set of demands to outsiders like me. One could think you are the leader of the project. And by the way if the first test fails then your great hour could come pretty fast. However, you should also realize that two different models require the doubled amount of work and money. Did you donate something to claim own rights?
CharlesChandler
Re: SAFIRE Project
Bomb20 wrote: Now they are testing their own model FIRST...
I was told that they planned to do an exhaustive set of tests, with no pre-formed conclusions about which model was correct. Rather, their method would determine which model was correct, if any of them were. But for them to say that "the SAFIRE Project will first consider the model of the Electric Sun (ES), as put forward by Wal Thornhill, Don Scott, and Ralph Jeurgens" shows a clear preference for one model in particular.
I actually have no problem with people engaging in such an enterprise starting with a favorite model. In fact, I actually believe that this is correct. An exhaustive set of tests, that walks the physics through every possible permutation, would be extremely difficult, and extremely expensive. It's far simpler to start with an assumption, and put it to the test. It's even arguable that we always have assumptions, and that there never was a completely unbiased study of anything. At least if you state your assumptions, they're accessible to review. But if you keep your assumptions hidden under the pretense of a complete lack of bias, it's much harder to figure out how the assumptions manipulated the experimental apparatus, and the conclusions drawn. This is why the Scientific Method stipulates observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and conclusion. So the experiment merely challenges the hypothesis, and makes no pretense of having tested every possible permutation.
So when I heard that they were going to conduct some tests, I volunteered my opinion on how the Sun works, and how it could be tested, under the premise that they might decide to test that configuration while they're at it, in case the anode tests didn't go well, and especially if it wouldn't cost too much more money to just flip the polarity.
CharlesChandler wrote: Here was my design to test the cathode model.
I was told that my pre-formed conclusion that the cathode model was correct was not something that they were willing to consider, given their impartiality. OK, whatever. I was never convinced that they were fully unbiased. We always have assumptions about which model is correct. But if they were actually going to attempt an exhaustive set of tests, more power to them. Yet if this is not what they are doing at all, and rather, they are testing one particular model, this needs to be explicitly declared.
So I agree with you that if it is their money, it's their experiment, and they get to do it however they choose. I might think that the anode model will not return positive results, but that's just my opinion, and in the end, all configurations have to be tested, even if they're wrong, if we are to know for sure what's going on. Thus I have no problem with the anode model being tested. If it fails, it points the way to other possible configurations. But if it is presented as a complete test of the possibility that the Sun is electric, and it fails, it takes down other possibilities with it, which would not be correct.
Solar
Re: SAFIRE Project
CharlesChandler wrote: But for them to say that "the SAFIRE Project will first consider the model of the Electric Sun (ES), as put forward by Wal Thornhill, Don Scott, and Ralph Jeurgens" shows a clear preference for one model in particular.
No; it doesn't.
Given multiple models the use of the word "considered" means simply that. It is to consider the implications of one model in relation to a given experiment. Next month, someone could say 'We will now consider an Electrostatic Sun' in relation to the very same one experimental run - that was ran. Four weeks later the announcer returns and says 'We will now consider the Tesla model' in relation to the very same initial experimental run.
One doesn't assume that to consider a particular model infers that all subsequent experimentation will be based on the particular model being given consideration at any given point in time. Have you taken the use of the word "consideration" further than it needs to go?
CharlesChandler wrote: I actually have no problem with people engaging in such an enterprise starting with a favorite model. In fact, I actually believe that this is correct.
That effectively makes the rest of your points moot doesn't it? If one then assume that the experimental foundation is somewhere near correct then the results of one run of any given experiment might indicate the necessity of plucking accurate portions from multiple models. But in order to do that each model has to be "considered" in relation to the results of each phase of experimentation in linear fashion one at a time.
You already know all of this so I'm not understanding the rest.
justcurious
Re: SAFIRE Project
I don't remember who, but someone at EU2014 told me both tests were performed (anode and cathode models), and that "it's definitely anode". There were impressive videos presented by Monty Childs at the conference, but no cameras allowed, not sure it will be posted on youtube. Some of the footage resembled phenomena we see on the Sun (CMEs, etc).
antosarai
Re: SAFIRE Project
justcurious wrote: (...) There were impressive videos presented by Monty Childs at the conference, but no cameras allowed, not sure it will be posted on youtube. (...)
From what I read, in Jan, 2013 it was supposedly ready to run in Jul, 2013. Since then no annoucements, no publications, not one word about it from official EU sources, though. Eerie, isn't it?
CharlesChandler
Re: SAFIRE Project
justcurious wrote: I don't remember who, but someone at EU2014 told me both tests were performed (anode and cathode models), and that "it's definitely anode".
Cool. So when are they going to show us the specs for the apparatus? I'm going to run some numbers to double-check their results.
But if they test just one configuration, and then represent it as THE model, it will only prove that their method is flawed. They have to state their assumptions, and the limitations of their method, or they'll get chewed up, by people outside & inside the EU community.
