justcurious wrote: There seems to be some communication breakdown somewhere.
The problem is that you don't know what a Birkeland current is.
justcurious wrote: The model you show of the magnetic field with the lines going to nowhere, that is exactly what is wrong, and that is what I have been questioning from the very beginning.
That isn't my model. It's a schematic representation of the data, done by the Southwest Research Institute. As concerns what is wrong with that picture, we should consider how this whole "discussion" got started.
justcurious wrote: And while on the topic of the Sun's magnetic field, dose anyone know what it looks like? Because from what I read so far the North and South magnetic poles are separated by the HCS which extends all the way out to the Heliosphere. So where would the field lines meet? If they don't, then we have a Sun composed of two monopoles, something considered impossible by all scientists and engineers.
CharlesChandler wrote: Indeed, "open field lines" shouldn't be possible, and on that topic, the mainstream just starts issuing MHD astrobabble to mask their confusion. IMO, this is easy to understand. The quiet Sun's rotation generates a solenoidal magnetic field, though it has alternating layers of charge, and whichever layer is rotating faster generates the dominant field. Due to a phenomenon known as torsional oscillation, layers inside the Sun speed up and slow down with respect to each other as part of the solar cycle. If those are charged layers, it also explains the inversion of the solenoidal field through the cycle. The active Sun is, of course, considerably more complex. Anyway, as mentioned above, in addition to the solenoidal field, there is also an electron drift that gets consolidated into distinct charge streams at the tips of the helmet streamers. The magnetic field lines follow the outside of the streamers, to the tip, and then continue on out into space. To me, this just means that solenoidal lines of force got redirected into axial lines of force inside Birkeland currents, which never "close" the way solenoidal lines do. So whenever the literature refers to "open magnetic flux tubes", I hear "Birkeland currents with axial magnetic fields".
Ummm... I "think" that we started out agreeing that open field lines shouldn't be possible. But because you don't understand Birkeland currents, you didn't understand my answer to the question, and you concluded that I didn't answer your question, and then you blamed me. I'm only calling your attention to this because I'd rather not have to go through this again.
justcurious wrote: The b-field around a current is always circular. Now if you give a helical shape to that current, the b-field may have an axial component along the axis of the helix (although I never bothered to model it).
Why don't you go ahead and model it, and show us what you come up with. Imagine a coil of wire with a current flowing through it. Apply the right hand rule to get your initial take on the magnetic fields that will be generated. According to you, the B-field around a current is always circular. But magnetic field lines cannot intersect. So what happens when the little circular fields from each wrap in the coil overlap each other? They superimpose into a solenoidal field, with a dense axial field, and with the lines splaying outward at the start and stop of the coil. Now imagine that the coil is 1,000 km wide and 100 AU long, and generating a B-field that averages 6 nT (according to the Southwest Research Institute). Theoretically, if the coil stops at the heliopause (i.e., 100 AU), the axial lines of force should wrap around the outside, to close at the beginning of the coil (i.e., back where the HCS first got started). But if you're going to say that the permeability of the interplanetary medium is going to sustain a closing (i.e., unassisted) 6 nT field through 100 AU, I'll ask you to show me the math. Effectively speaking, those lines don't close.
But as I mentioned in my last post, those lines wouldn't loop all of the way back to the beginning anyway — not if there is an opposite-polarity field nearby. So imagine two coils, 1,000 km wide, 100 AU long, and wound in opposite directions, such that the magnetic polarities are opposite. Out at the far end (i.e., 100 AU from the beginning), what do you think is going to happen to the closing lines? Will they ignore each other, and loop all of the way back to the beginning of the coils? Or will they close on each other? I'm betting that they'll close on each other out at the heliopause. So in that image, where it says (in red text) "open solar magnetic field lines", notice that they're in pairs, and they're opposite in polarity. Just take those, and close them on each other, wherever the current stops.
Then you just have to figure out why the mainstream identifies magnetic flux tubes leading off to nowhere, without any electric currents in them, and in-between the flux tubes, there is this current sheet with no identifiable magnetic field associated with it. IMO, if you have a magnetic field coming from an unidentified electric current, and you have an electric current but no known magnetic field from it, you can answer both riddles by saying that the charge streams in the HCS are generating the observed magnetic fields. Hence the flux tubes and the HCS are the same thing.
justcurious wrote: But in your case, I believe you are thinking about "magnetic re-connection".
Where did I say that?
justcurious wrote: So-called "magnetic re-connection" is when a current takes the path of least resistance (as currents like to do), which in some cases will be on a path parallel to the b-field and hence "force-free", and the currents will appear to be following a "magnetic line".
Actually, "magnetic reconnection" (as used by the mainstream) is a non-physical construct supposedly responsible for solar flares and similar releases of stored energy. As used by the mainstream, there aren't any electric currents in it — it's just (imaginary) energy stored in magnetic flux tubes that explode every once in a while. But that's a non-physical construct. If you're going to try to explain it in physical terms, you're misusing the term.
There are no lines. I think that is where the communication between you and justcurious went awry.
Regards, Daniel
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Corpuscles wrote: I, like I suspect many, have followed this thread with interest.
I think that it's time that other "lurkers" start speaking up as well. Where do you guys want to go with this? I have been insisting that the issues be laid out for all to see, and that the critical questions be identified. If there are answers, let's hear them. There are so many different places to find info on the EU that nobody knows all of it. Some of these questions could be answered just with info that's already available, and it's a senseless waste of good intellect to have to go round-n-round on an issue out of ignorance. If we could bring all of the info into one central thesis, we'd eliminate all of that waste. (Perhaps this is where the Essential Guide is going?) In other cases, the answers do not exist. But if you ask about such things, you get nothing but argumentativeness. This too is senseless, and everybody in the world knows that an evasive/rhetorical answer means that there isn't a legitimate one. Fighting back with floods of disrespectful denials doesn't defend the honor of the EU — it proves that we don't have answers, and we don't care. So that's actually worse than just a waste of time — it sullies our reputations.
So, do you guys want to have meaningful debates, where the points are laid out, and questions are either answered, or clearly labeled as open questions to be further investigated? Or do you want to prove that you cannot be swayed from your convictions, no matter the evidence against?
We all know that the Newton-Einstein paradigm is in crisis, and that EM is the only possible solution. So Mother Nature is on our side, and in principle, we can't lose. But EM has a lot of configurations, and just because we know that it's the answer doesn't mean that we know how it's the answer. And some of the "hows" in the existing EU framework are clearly flawed. So what are we going to do? Cover the flaws with tenacity? Or consider other configurations, and fix the problems?
I'm convinced that these are all fixable problems. As concerns some of the issues (e.g., solar modeling) I believe that we have more than enough data to eliminate configurations that just aren't going to work. There are even cases in which a definitive proof of a specific configuration can be demonstrated. In other cases, we can at least narrow down the range of possibilities. And I believe that crowdsourcing is the way to go. But so far, it's been just me, Lloyd, Brant, and Michael collaborating. We've made a lot of progress, and we're in the process of developing proofs, not just possibilities. We're about to give up and break off from the EU, so that we'll stop wasting our time in arguments, and move forward more rapidly. Of course, you'll flame us just as bad as you do the mainstream, because we'll disagree with you. But our framework won't have any of the flaws of the Newton-Einstein paradigm, nor of the legacy EU tenets. That will put you in a very awkward position.
So I'd like to call on the members of EU community to speak up concerning how they want to see the issues addressed. What do you like and not like about how these threads are going? Are we making progress here? If not, what needs to be changed?
starbiter
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
Corpuscles wrote: I, like I suspect many, have followed this thread with interest.
I think that it's time that other "lurkers" start speaking up as well. Where do you guys want to go with this? I have been insisting that the issues be laid out for all to see, and that the critical questions be identified. If there are answers, let's hear them. There are so many different places to find info on the EU that nobody knows all of it. Some of these questions could be answered just with info that's already available, and it's a senseless waste of good intellect to have to go round-n-round on an issue out of ignorance. If we could bring all of the info into one central thesis, we'd eliminate all of that waste. (Perhaps this is where the Essential Guide is going?) In other cases, the answers do not exist. But if you ask about such things, you get nothing but argumentativeness. This too is senseless, and everybody in the world knows that an evasive/rhetorical answer means that there isn't a legitimate one. Fighting back with floods of disrespectful denials doesn't defend the honor of the EU — it proves that we don't have answers, and we don't care. So that's actually worse than just a waste of time — it sullies our reputations.
So, do you guys want to have meaningful debates, where the points are laid out, and questions are either answered, or clearly labeled as open questions to be further investigated? Or do you want to prove that you cannot be swayed from your convictions, no matter the evidence against?
We all know that the Newton-Einstein paradigm is in crisis, and that EM is the only possible solution. So Mother Nature is on our side, and in principle, we can't lose. But EM has a lot of configurations, and just because we know that it's the answer doesn't mean that we know how it's the answer. And some of the "hows" in the existing EU framework are clearly flawed. So what are we going to do? Cover the flaws with tenacity? Or consider other configurations, and fix the problems?
I'm convinced that these are all fixable problems. As concerns some of the issues (e.g., solar modeling) I believe that we have more than enough data to eliminate configurations that just aren't going to work. There are even cases in which a definitive proof of a specific configuration can be demonstrated. In other cases, we can at least narrow down the range of possibilities. And I believe that crowdsourcing is the way to go. But so far, it's been just me, Lloyd, Brant, and Michael collaborating. We've made a lot of progress, and we're in the process of developing proofs, not just possibilities. We're about to give up and break off from the EU, so that we'll stop wasting our time in arguments, and move forward more rapidly. Of course, you'll flame us just as bad as you do the mainstream, because we'll disagree with you. But our framework won't have any of the flaws of the Newton-Einstein paradigm, nor of the legacy EU tenets. That will put you in a very awkward position.
So I'd like to call on the members of EU community to speak up concerning how they want to see the issues addressed. What do you like and not like about how these threads are going? Are we making progress here? If not, what needs to be changed?
I for one enjoy the conversational tone of the Thunderbolts Forum, and this thread in particular. IMHO, if anyone needs a debate please do it somewhere else.
michael steinbacher
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
starbiter wrote: I for one enjoy the conversational tone of the Thunderbolts Forum, and this thread in particular. IMHO, if anyone needs a debate please do it somewhere else.
It started out conversational enough, until we got to Page 4, where I demonstrated that the Vemasat "blueberries" were just welding slag. Past that point, JustCurious started consistently slandering me. Clearly, if you prove Thornhill wrong, you get attacked. And while PersianPaladin posted a large volume of links, abstracts, and quotes, my questions were never answered. I'm willing to leave an open question open, but it doesn't help for an evasive pseudo-answer to mask the fact that the question really wasn't addressed.
Also, by "somewhere else", do you mean some other thread (such as in the NIAMI forum), or some other board altogether? Please be explicit. We're at the "tipping point" here, so we have to decide which way to go.
Michael Mozina
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
PersianPaladin wrote: Michael....
Dr. Scott states that the photosphere is in "arc mode":-
Oooops, you're absolutely right about that. My apologies. When he used the term anode 'glow', I read translated that in my head to glow mode discharge. Sorry about that.
And he'd be right too. It exhibits all the properties of that mode of plasma and current-density, regarding the high-intensity UV light output that is constantly measured.
True. Then again, an ordinary neon bulb does that too provided that the voltage and current remains relatively constant.
Also, recent higher resolution instruments have found that the glowing "granules" in the photosphere are composed of small transient filaments with considerably large magnetic fields:- http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/yurchyshyn1514.pdf
It's not altogether clear to me that the large fields which they measure are actually related to the photosphere, or these large fields are related to the powerful coronal loops (Benett Pinch Currents) that come through that surface.
Solar flares are just higher-intensity discharges and are thus brighter.
The discharge of the solar flare blows hot material up and through the photosphere, and indeed it "lights up" that surface where the particle and current density of the hot plasma is greatest.
FYI, Charles is not really claiming that magnetic lines are actually "open". We're simply well aware of the fact that these are "current carrying threads" that go from the surface to the heliosphere (or visa versa depending on your orientation).
One other point to keep in mind is that they recently 'discovered' that cosmic rays include an overabundance of positrons with respect to electrons, particularly at higher energy states:
Now of course we can link electrical discharges to the release of positron, whereas nobody can link them to exotic matter. What is 'interesting' about this study IMO is that it jives with Birkeland's "prediction" that cathode suns are interacting with an anode universe.
I personally think that the only way to fully determine configurations is to "try them out" in the lab. Birkeland spent a lot of time in his lab with all sorts of sphere configurations, and all sorts of internal magnetic field orientations. He was quite convinced that the sun is the cathode, and the heliosphere (space) is the anode. Recent observations of positron abundances in cosmic rays is consistent with that prediction.
Corpuscles
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
Corpuscles wrote: I, like I suspect many, have followed this thread with interest.
I think that it's time that other "lurkers" start speaking up as well. Where do you guys want to go with this? I have been insisting that the issues be laid out for all to see, and that the critical questions be identified. If there are answers, let's hear them. There are so many different places to find info on the EU that nobody knows all of it. Some of these questions could be answered just with info that's already available, and it's a senseless waste of good intellect to have to go round-n-round on an issue out of ignorance. If we could bring all of the info into one central thesis, we'd eliminate all of that waste. (Perhaps this is where the Essential Guide is going?) In other cases, the answers do not exist. But if you ask about such things, you get nothing but argumentativeness. This too is senseless, and everybody in the world knows that an evasive/rhetorical answer means that there isn't a legitimate one. Fighting back with floods of disrespectful denials doesn't defend the honor of the EU — it proves that we don't have answers, and we don't care. So that's actually worse than just a waste of time — it sullies our reputations.
So, do you guys want to have meaningful debates, where the points are laid out, and questions are either answered, or clearly labeled as open questions to be further investigated? Or do you want to prove that you cannot be swayed from your convictions, no matter the evidence against?
We all know that the Newton-Einstein paradigm is in crisis, and that EM is the only possible solution. So Mother Nature is on our side, and in principle, we can't lose. But EM has a lot of configurations, and just because we know that it's the answer doesn't mean that we know how it's the answer. And some of the "hows" in the existing EU framework are clearly flawed. So what are we going to do? Cover the flaws with tenacity? Or consider other configurations, and fix the problems?
I'm convinced that these are all fixable problems. As concerns some of the issues (e.g., solar modeling) I believe that we have more than enough data to eliminate configurations that just aren't going to work. There are even cases in which a definitive proof of a specific configuration can be demonstrated. In other cases, we can at least narrow down the range of possibilities. And I believe that crowdsourcing is the way to go. But so far, it's been just me, Lloyd, Brant, and Michael collaborating. We've made a lot of progress, and we're in the process of developing proofs, not just possibilities. We're about to give up and break off from the EU, so that we'll stop wasting our time in arguments, and move forward more rapidly. Of course, you'll flame us just as bad as you do the mainstream, because we'll disagree with you. But our framework won't have any of the flaws of the Newton-Einstein paradigm, nor of the legacy EU tenets. That will put you in a very awkward position.
So I'd like to call on the members of EU community to speak up concerning how they want to see the issues addressed. What do you like and not like about how these threads are going? Are we making progress here? If not, what needs to be changed?
Woah! WTF!?
Charles, I gather from your opening remark you would consider it rude and even further frustrating if I failed to reply? I try my best to be courteous and respectful to all so against my instinct I will reply:
You seem to be an intelligent, extremely enthusiastic, well read, knowledgeable poster who has the dedication to give to TB forum your thoughts and sometimes raise some very good questions.
Well done. All I was trying to say is there are folks following/ reading your and others efforts/contibutions and to offer praise .
There was no intention to flame or disrespect you if it appeared that way I offer my sincere apology.
BUT I think "thou does presume too much".
If you haven't taken the time to read this forum (other posters) extensively yet then please do so. Then you will discover that contributors come from vastly different backgrounds, with very different skillsets or knowledge and often particular interests and bias (hobby horses). This forum ,isn't "THE EU" , we live in it on a planet called Earth in a Solar system of which relatively very little is known about it with absolute certainty!
Just because there are an unusally high number and high calibre , absolutely brilliant thinkers who post here does not mean they are obligated, nor have the time and resources, nor necessarily the desire to contribute to a thread, or join a club to solve all the problems of the universe and publish in one place the 'holy scriptures' of EU.
I agree EU theory is fragmented . Moderator MGMirkin to his great credit has obviously spent massive amount of time trying to compile resources. The EU Essentials guide is very welcome and worthwhile. No such item was around when I joined up here.
If you and your will volunteer colleagues can improve on it, then I suggest you make polite and humble approach to Dave Talbott (Sponsor/ADMINISTRATOR) of this forum and even open private communication lines with the likes of Wal Thornhill et al.
I respectfully suggest you work hard, save money , set aside the time and commit to a presentation at a future major EU event... just like Bob Johnson did.
But please when a quality science journalist like Hoz Turner (PP) posts a link with praise to those (YOUR) efforts and to open up forum discussion just think how annoyed you might be if some individual ( lets blame for example that f-wit "Corpuscles":) just jumped in and demanded that we gather every known theory and all debate them all but especially the "Corpuscles one"
Please ,make sure you go armed with backup support for every one of your statements . Take special care in your preparatory review that you note any of your statements that start with " well, of course, we all know that....
Take your pick a Giraffe or a Camel. ? Each or both, it is said in unknown sourced proverb, were: "Thoroughbred race HORSES designed by committee's"
It would be a sad loss to this forum if your valuable contributions ceased. However if you feel more valuable utimate gain would be achieved by desisting in "wasting our time in arguments, and move forward more rapidly" then I wish you and your colleagues every success in that endeavour and look forward to the publication somewhere.
As for my 2 cents worth of contribution on that endeavour then.
EU theory seems to have arisen from specialists in plasma physics and Electrical Engineering studies recognising familair patterns in accumulating forthcoming cosmological data as well as glaring anomolies in Mainstream theory.
They jumped in in the middle and want to explain it all with electrons and ions, based on mostly earth based experiments in Crookes tubes or the phemomenon of DC "electricity".
Most criticism comes along the lines of eg " Why are there these Birkland currents , were do they come from how do they work?
Ratbags like me ask "What the hell is Charge?"
Physics lost it's way when it dropped the notion of a fundamental aether. MS know that (privately in secret) they just invent new , exotic names for it.
Yep I have even weirder thoughts, there is no particle wave duality.... ONLY WAVES!
You see I would put a great big fat reserve, hump on your collective racehorse! So would many other valuable intelligent TB forum contributors ( way more dedicated and knowledgeable than me)
Therefore I politely read with interest. ( I should have praised your solar model effort in the NIAMI board with : "A great effort CC , very interesting, but I am afraid I do not have in my possession adequate verified data at my disposal to offer valuable critic and some of it is way over my head"
Good luck Warmest regards Corpuscles (Steve)
Corpuscles
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
PS
Charles, as an aside I find it fascinating that you include the works of the late , great Harold Aspden in your study material. Whilst extremely math heavy in its presentation, did you cherry pick or do you get what he was on about?
As a further aside espically for the "old timers" around TB .... that might be "lurking".... As for debate , the dear sadly missed major contributor Dean Ward RIP (junglelord) would I suspect if he was inclined given you the debate to end all desire for such. You might have only realised much later on reflection what the heck he was on about! Despite the fact you would have been a very worthy formidable opponent/contestant... but by then you would be plucked, turned inside out, with your hide hanging out to dry.
Fortunately for posterity many of his thoughts and great insights live on deep in the back catelogue of this forum. There is a goldmine for your project in that!
Shyte.... i miss you junglelord!
starbiter
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Charles Chandler said,
"Also, by "somewhere else", do you mean some other thread (such as in the NIAMI forum), or some other board altogether? Please be explicit. We're at the "tipping point" here, so we have to decide which way to go."
me again,
By somewhere else i mean somewhere other than this thread. There are two threads on the new insights thread board about Your work. One is titled "CC's Theory Debate". Wouldn't that be a good place to discuss Your debate?
michael
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
I am very very curious of what Peratt thinks of the solar models, Alfven vs Juergens, Don Scott's variant, Bob Johnson's questions... Anyone have a clue on Peratt's opinion on these topics? He's the leading plasma cosmologist of the day isn't he?
Siggy_G
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
justcurious wrote: I am very very curious of what Peratt thinks of the solar models, Alfven vs Juergens, Don Scott's variant, Bob Johnson's questions... Anyone have a clue on Peratt's opinion on these topics? He's the leading plasma cosmologist of the day isn't he?
Alfvén didn't question the standard solar model during his lifetime (or didn't get to the point of doing so), but he did see an electric nature of it and was the first to explain the heliospheric dynamics with a cirquit model. Peratt has elaborated on how stars may form from pinching cosmic currents, as an extension of Alfvén, Fälthammar and Carlquist's work. He didn't assume stars to be sustained by external currents; that's where Juergen's and Scott's models come in (and the extension from Plasma cosmology towards the Electric Universe model).
As such, it's hard to say whether Peratt finds the electric sun models plausible. I haven't seen any statements from him on that, and I look forward to any new papers from him (the last ones were on the possibility of ancients having witnessed global large-scale aurora phenomena). I know astronomer and physiscist Hilton Ratcliffe found Scott and Thornhill's work to be highly intriguing, but did miss further scientific elaboration of their models (ref his book "The Virtue of Heresy").
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Corpuscles wrote: If you and your volunteer colleagues can improve on it, then I suggest you make polite and humble approach to Dave Talbott (Sponsor/ADMINISTRATOR) of this forum and even open private communication lines with the likes of Wal Thornhill et al.
Been there, done that. The EU leaders have never expressed any interest whatsoever in the work that I'm doing. And this goes all the way back to the electric tornado theory that I developed, which I thought would be a welcome contribution to the (seemingly) growing body of solid work being done in the EU. But the reality is that the EU isn't growing at all. The EU leaders are basically saying, "This is our story, and we're sticking with it." So I tried to gain acceptance for my tornado theory on other boards, and in the scientific community. But I found that the EU had gotten there ahead of me, and had so soured everybody on the EM approach with their recalcitrant evangelism that nobody wanted to hear about electric tornado theory anymore. But I have no intention of giving up. Tornadoes kill people. For me, EM theory isn't an idle intellectual pastime. It's human lives on the line, and everybody's cozy little preformed conclusions, in the mainstream and in the EU, mean nothing to me. With a rigorous method, progress can be made, and lives can be saved. So now I have only two choices: get the EU to clean up its act, so that the entire paradigm gets acknowledged as legitimate, and then there will be progress in tornado theory, or discredit the EU, so that they are no longer in my way. So I'm out to prove that the Universe is, in fact, electric. And either the EU gets real, or it demonstrates that it really has no interest in seeing their premise proved, which will prove that the EU is really just a big scam.
Of course, I'm not a universal genius, and as I've said many times before, I never seem to get anything right on the first try. But when I'm shown to be wrong, I don't then show that I don't care, and just stick to my story, as if this is all just intellectual prerogative anyway. No, if I'm wrong, I get right. This process will, of course, continue ad infinitum. For me, truth isn't a position — it's a process. And with this mentality, I've developed a model that takes more into account than any other that I've seen. If I stick to this process, the scope & specificity of the model will simply continue to grow. Problems will be identified, and they will be fixed. With time, people will start to realize that I'm making progress. And they will also get a good look at the things that are impeding my progress. To stop me, you'll have to do it in full public view. And then you'll have to answer for why you think that progress should be impeded. Sometime later, after you've lost, you'll realize that impeding scientific progress was a self-defeating proposition from the very beginning. The truth doesn't sleep, and in the end, it always wins. Use a method that leads you to the truth, and you'll win too. Pick an idea that you like and refuse to acknowledge evidence that you're wrong, and you've already lost.
But mind you — I'm not asking people to accept my work outright. I'm asking people to engage in honest, open discussions of the issues. I don't have all of the answers. But I'll lay out what I've done, and I'll listen carefully to criticisms, and I'll ask others to do the same. Then we'll make progress.
Corpuscles wrote: But please when a quality science journalist like Hoz Turner (PP) posts a link with praise to those (YOUR) efforts...
"Quality science journalist"? Like who??? The first rule of journalism is, "Check your facts." Hoz doesn't know this. He tried to defend his contentions about Marklund convection by saying that proof was established in the laboratory by the "Vemasat blueberries". Here was his comment:
PersianPaladin wrote: I do have faith that CJ Ransom and Vemasat Labs know the difference between ordinary welding slag and the pinched spherules with their particular morphologies.
"Faith" isn't "quality science journalism". If he had double-checked the facts, he would have learned that the "blueberries" are just welding slag. But later he continued...
PersianPaladin wrote: And regarding the Vemasat Lab spherules. Again, Chandler continues to ignore the morphologies generated that show they are distinct from just "slag". I'm sure they know the difference between the two. Unless you want to ask him to perform another experiment with a "control", or just outright accuse him of scientific incompetence? I'm wondering if Lloyd or Chandler want an honest debate here or they are just throwing their hypothetical assumptions around.
Well, OK, if you're going to call my honesty into question, I guess I'll have to state what I honestly know to be true, since I am a qualified CNC machinist, with hands-on experience with plasma cutters, EDM, arc welding, and acetylene torches. The typical width of the electron stream in arc welding is 0.25 mm. The blueberries averaged 1.00 mm in diameter. So the blueberries were 4 times wider than the electron stream. And yet they were created inside the electron stream, by Marklund convection? How do you condense a 1.00 mm blueberry inside a 0.25 mm electron stream? I can say with a high degree of confidence that this isn't physically possible, and anybody who says it's so either just doesn't know the relevant specs (i.e., incompetence), or does, but has an ulterior motive for misrepresenting the facts (i.e., fraud). These are not "hypothetical assumptions" — they are machining specs that are publicly accessible (even to journalists — who bother to look). Now, can I get an honest rebuttal to that? Or am I just going to get slandered some more, for "dishonestly" not taking Ransom & Thornhill on faith?
You guys are so far over the line that you don't even realize that you've crossed a line. I wonder how many signatures I'd be able to get on a protest petition if I post it to the rest of the science boards on the Internet, citing the "published literature" coming out of the EU, and easily showing how specious it actually is? I think that I could get Ransom & Thornhill remembered more for their blueberries than for all of the rest of what they have done put together, and all of their future prospects will disappear. And EU champions think that they have the right to slander me?
So, here's the tipping point again: do we want a slander war, or do we want to do a legitimate scientific inquiry? I'm for science, and I'm insisting that the problems in the EU get fixed. If obvious errors cannot be fixed, just publicly say so.
Corpuscles wrote: Yep I have even weirder thoughts, there is no particle wave duality.... ONLY WAVES!
Ah, if I had another couple of lifetimes, I'd give at least one of them to wave theory! And of course waves can only travel in a medium, so there is no such thing as empty space. But I've got my hands full with stuff going on at larger scales, and I "think" that a rewrite of the foundational principles won't change the higher-level manifestations. So Birkeland currents become a combination of standing & traveling waves through the aether, instead of magnetic field aligned particle streams — but the currents don't know that we changed their names! So I'm proceeding with proven laboratory science, even though I'm suspicious of the chaos of modern particle physics and quantum mechanics, and I'm applauding the efforts of anybody exploring new avenues.
Corpuscles wrote: ...you include the works of the late , great Harold Aspden in your study material. Whilst extremely math heavy in its presentation, did you cherry pick or do you get what he was on about?
I basically cherry-picked him, just for the info on supercritical hydrogen. Aether is too far outside the scope of the galactic/stellar modeling that I'm doing.
Corpuscles wrote: ...but by then you would be plucked, turned inside out, with your hide hanging out to dry...
That's the kind of debate I'm seeking, as long as the points are legitimate. I don't need any more lessons in rhetoric!
starbiter wrote: By somewhere else i mean somewhere other than this thread. There are two threads on the new insights thread board about Your work. One is titled "CC's Theory Debate". Wouldn't that be a good place to discuss Your debate?
I have suggested several times that threads be a little bit more containerized, attempting to stick to the back-n-forth on one issue, and for tangents to be broken out into new threads. I also have no problem keeping my "mad ideas" on the NIAMI forum. But that isn't what triggered the slander campaign from JustCurious, and the stone-walling from PersianPaladin. The problem is that I identified flaws in central EU tenets, such as star formation by Marklund convection. Here are the guidelines:
Dave Smith wrote: All posts to the scientific parts of the forum should be confined to properly constructed scientific arguments either supporting or challenging published Electric Universe theory. The ONLY places we treat as exceptions to these guidelines is on "The Human Question" and "New Insights and Mad Ideas" boards.
Do you believe that these should be modified, to include a clause stating that people who prove Thornhill wrong should be slandered?
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
Dave Smith wrote: All posts to the scientific parts of the forum should be confined to properly constructed scientific arguments either supporting or challenging published Electric Universe theory. The ONLY places we treat as exceptions to these guidelines is on "The Human Question" and "New Insights and Mad Ideas" boards.
Do you believe that these should be modified, to include a clause stating that people who prove Thornhill wrong should be slandered?
The problem is that you generally do not provide properly constructed scientific arguments. You have proven over and over that you don't understand electricity and magnetism, which is fine. But you write authoritatively as if you know what you're talking about, and you have this "science" website of yours, and always referencing high sounding scientific papers, and your very strong presence on this board... I was fooled for a while but learned not to waste my time. Others were not so fortunate, and took you seriously and wasted their time as well. And now you're hogging all the space on this thread with your novels. You claim that the EU leaders don't take your theories seriously because they don't want to grow or because it does not fit their theories... I find it ironic that you make such a claim on a thread that is discussing some pretty deep criticisms of the leading EU solar model.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
justcurious wrote: The problem is that you generally do not provide properly constructed scientific arguments.
Please substantiate or withdraw that claim.
nick c
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
To all, No name calling please, it is against forum policy. It is also forum policy that the 'Electric Universe' and 'Electric Universe - Planetary Science' boards should be reserved for discussion/debate of the published material of EU theorists.
I am going to go through the recent posts on this thread and delete those that do not belong on the Electric Universe forum, contain any forum violations, as well as responses to those posts. If anyone has any posts that they want to save, I would suggest that you copy them soon as they will be deleted in the next 24 hours.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Nick,
You'll have to start on Page 4 if you want to get all of them, not just the one time that I responded in kind.
I'm only calling your attention to this because I'd rather not have to go through this again.
justcurious wrote:Why don't you go ahead and model it, and show us what you come up with. Imagine a coil of wire with a current flowing through it. Apply the right hand rule to get your initial take on the magnetic fields that will be generated. According to you, the B-field around a current is always circular. But magnetic field lines cannot intersect. So what happens when the little circular fields from each wrap in the coil overlap each other? They superimpose into a solenoidal field, with a dense axial field, and with the lines splaying outward at the start and stop of the coil. Now imagine that the coil is 1,000 km wide and 100 AU long, and generating a B-field that averages 6 nT (according to the Southwest Research Institute). Theoretically, if the coil stops at the heliopause (i.e., 100 AU), the axial lines of force should wrap around the outside, to close at the beginning of the coil (i.e., back where the HCS first got started). But if you're going to say that the permeability of the interplanetary medium is going to sustain a closing (i.e., unassisted) 6 nT field through 100 AU, I'll ask you to show me the math. Effectively speaking, those lines don't close.
So I'm proceeding with proven laboratory science, even though I'm suspicious of the chaos of modern particle physics and quantum mechanics, and I'm applauding the efforts of anybody exploring new avenues.
Corpuscles wrote:I basically cherry-picked him, just for the info on supercritical hydrogen.
