I (think I) see where you're coming from. But don't you think that you're effectively trying to make the case for "peer review", and yet BAUT is not the same standard as peer review... after all, it includes people like me.

I have no problem assessing Peratt's work, but I don't think that a one-off example can be used to assess the mainstream-ness of all of Alfvén and Peratt's "version" of plasma cosmology.

I could also argue that even the mainstream may have several concurrent theories on the same topic, with specific theories being flavour of the month.

We could argue, for example, about "dirty snowballs" and "snowy dirtballs", but currently there is insufficient evidence to decide it one way or the other. Personally I don't see it as mutually exclusive. The latest data seems to show that Temple-1 is not a snowball. Who knows what the next one will be made from.

At the end of the day, the only person who needs to be convinced by a theory is oneself. For some people, Nature journal is the arbitor. For others, a particular fact may strike an accord. But I suspect that we will agree to disagree.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

For the 500 keV number have a look at Wikipedia.
The 2 kV number came from iantresman's link, but I have not seen any refutation of it.
I used these numbers as order-of-magnitude estimates, which is better than nothing.

You ask: "Would the trajectory of a particle influence it's energy level?"
It is the other way 'round: the higher the kinetic energy, the higher the momentum, the harder it is to change the trajectory.


If the motion of the particles was determined by an "external" electric field (as in a glow discharge cell), the ions would be able to drag the elctrons with them.
The electrons instead would move in the opposite direction, under the influence of the "external" electric field (as happens in a glow discharge cell).
A weak electric field that allows ions to drag electrons with them, would have a negligible effect on the motions of both ions and electrons.

The problem is that an electric field that determines the motion of the ions, is not compatible with the ions being able to drag electons with them.

If a double-layer-like structure was repsonsible for the initial acceleration of the ions, how are electrons leaving the Sun?
They would be accelerated (even more effectively than the ions, because they have a much smaller mass) in the opposite direction, without reaching the interplanetary space as the ions.

You referred me to Tim Thompson's posts: if you are trying to support the EU view, you have to show where he is wrong.
In the above quote, were you trying to refute his arguments? If so, how exactly did you do it?
As far as I can see, you only presented the EU view of a voltage across the Solar System as arising from "galactic scale" and "interstellar" currents, without providing anything in support of this view.
So, how exactly would these interstellar currents provide a voltage across the Solar System?

My questions are many and vague because your answer was vague.

Let me see:
I showed that the "weak radial field" would have a negligible effect on the motion of the particles, therefore your objection to my representation of your position falls.



You said on various occasions:
It seems that sometimes you present the electrons as moving in the same direction as the ions, and sometimes moving in the opposite direction: which is it?

I included in my presentation of the EU view that ions and electrons move in the same direction, following those quotes above and the fact that you do not seem to dispute the observations.

The observations show that there are no electrons moving towards the Sun, so the charged particles are not moving under the influence of an electric field.
Therefore, the Solar System does not fit the idea of a glow discharge cell, as presented by you and other EU proponents.

And if your argument is that the "radial field" is too weak to move the electrons towards the Sun, then it is too weak to have a glow discharge effect.
After all, one of the characteristic features of glow dishcarge is that there is a net electric current flowing between cathode and anode.

So, if the EU view of the Solar System as glow discharge cell has electrons and ions moving in opposite directions (" ions toward the heliospheric boundary, electrons towards the Sun"), then it is disproven by the observations.
If the EU accepts that electrons and ions move in the same direction, then it is nothing like a glow discharge cell.



Try ticking the Remember me box when you login.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Yes, in general I do, but there are counterstreams and I want to remind you of the fact that the variability of the solar wind can be large (to the point it almost becomes zero).

No.


We can, but we don't yet know the size and frequency of these occurrences. It shows there is a lot more to the solar wind than just the fact that it streams away from the Sun. For a large-scale current centered on the Sun to exist, electrons need to get to the Sun as well, maybe these intermittent streams are the way it works, to complete the "circuit".


I was trying to point out that the radial field is weak, and that the net flow of electrons could be so low as to go unnoticed. It would be a nice exercise to find out what exactly this lower limit would be, the question if this net difference really exists remains open, imo.

These are two different things, in upriver's links the variability is large, so it wouldn't result in a constant radial electric field (I'm not sure it is, but it seems probable). See above.

I tried, but information is very hard to get, and I'm not making any claims, I'm just exploring the possibilities that the EU model is correct.

Constructive as in trying to answer the question the best way I can, do you really think that the points you raised about upriver's links and the exact numbers of "too low" are the deciding factor in accepting or dismissing the possibility that the EU model is viable?

And you denying that they are nitpicks makes them important? Did I already answer to your nitpicks now? Because I think we need to move on, and I don't have your stamina to keep checking.

Not all of you points are nitpicks, and I think I did show which ones I think of as nitpicks. What I would prefer discussing is the diagram I linked to, I think it is the core of the EU model as far as plasma physics is concerned.

No we haven't, we just see the inability of some of the proponents (including myself) to argue the critical points.

By searching the literature and look at new discoveries for evidence that supports the model. And hoping that the theorists come up with the math, while in the meantime exploring the critical points ourselves and keeping an open mind, also to the possibility that the EU model is wrong.

Cheers.

I dont have rehearsal today so I actually have time, until I have 2 back to back tomorrow.


I will refer you to the Ulysess website.
Notice the interstellar gastubes/Birkeland currents? They extend to the Centaurus/Scorpius Association. I posted several posts about this.

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/obj...objectid=35875

Here is the Association. Click on the pictures...

http://www.americanscientist.org/tem...BvvI2_Wj#20862
http://www.americanscientist.org/tem...d/21173/page/3


And this can be traced to the GC.

"NASA's Chandra finds black holes stirring up galaxies."
"We found the distribution of hot gas has no correlation with the optical shape," Diehl said. "Something is definitely making a mess there, and pumping energy equivalent to a supernova every century into the gas."

Although supernovae are a possible energy source, a more probable cause was identified. The scientists detected a correlation between the shape of the hot gas clouds and the power produced at radio wavelengths by high-energy electrons. This power output can be traced back to the centers of the galaxies, where super-massive black holes are located. "
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n...ndrablackhole/


Here is the power source for galaxy.

"These observations lend crucial support to the idea that acceleration of particles to very high energies is taking place at the gc (Crocker et al. 2005). Furthermore, all of them agree on the apparent absence of variability from the central source. "
http://clusterlaunch.esa.int/science...objectid=37891


Here is a model of the large scale (SLoan)map
http://www.bathsheba.com/crystal/largescale/

See the filamental structure.
Of the plasma.......



Yes, that is why I propose that the solar wind is the positive/neutral component dragging electrons, flowing away from the sun and the charge current is the negative component flowing in the opposite direction towards the sun.

From CLuster
"The electric current has also been measured in other places like the solar wind in the heliospheric current sheet, at the magnetopause (2nd figure), and in the magnetotail inside a "flux rope" (3rd figure). These results have been published in Dunlop et al., J. Geophys. Res., 2002 and Slavin at al., Geophys. Res. Lett, 2002."
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/obj...odylongid=1239


That is part of the issue with me is that we are "backing into" a description of the sun from an pre estabished electric viewpoint. I believe that it needs to be modified slightly to account for everything.

Instead of developing the idea, we are defending what is written.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

The interstellar flow of neutral Helium gas.
How is this a current?

According to the ESA:
(Bolding mine)

Maybe you were referring to the part in bold, which talks about the ionized part of the interstellar gas which stops at boundary of the heliosphere.
So, how does this produce a voltage across the Solar System.

If you think that a reference is relevant, you should explain how it is relevant, and point to the appropriate sections so that others can check it for themselves, without spending hours wading through pages of documents trying to find what you were talking about.

Let's have look at the text.

The first link talks about Protostars: where exactly does it talk about voltages across a stellar system?
Please point to the exact picture or page.

The second link talks about the Galactic Environment of the Sun:
Again, point to the page or picture which shows how a voltage across the Solar System is produced?


Again, how does this show that a voltage is produced acros the Solar System?
After all it says: (Emphasis mine.)
Did they detect the same phenomenom in our galaxy, and is it connected to a voltage across our Solar System.


(Emphasis mine.)
The detected photons (X-rays and gamma-rays): how does it power a voltage across the Solar System?

Again, how does it the paper relate to our discussion: how would this emission from the galactic center produce a voltage across our Solar System?


From the link:
What does this have to do with our discussion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by upriver See the filamental structure.

Are you planning to redefine electric current?

Or are you saying that in addition to the overall neutral Solar Wind there is a charge current towards the Sun?
If so, why isn't it observed?

Or are you saying that a positive Solar Wind is moving away from the Sun, and a negative current is going towards the Sun?
If so, even more an electric current should be detected.


Isn't this what akirabakabaka mentioned?

And how does it relate to what you were saying?

It would help further discussion if you explain specifically how a reference you provide is relevant.
Just throwing around links does not imply supporting your points.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Notice how the tubes cross over the top and bottom of the solar system(heliosphere).
In electrical terms that would be across.

A neutral wire can carry a charge current.
Analogy; How can sound move fast, even though the wind moves slow?

Also here is a mechinism that may be the way the solar wind works. Just a thought.
http://amasci.com/tesla/tmistk.html

The rest of the stuff is to show the rest of the (galactic)circuit.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

Sorry, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
The observations show that there is no zero net current.
Either you accept them, or you show that they are wrong.

You cannot just cherrypick from the evidence what you like and discard what you do not like.

Aren't you starting from the conclusion ("For a large-scale current centered on the Sun to exist...")?
Now you make a conjecture about "intermittent streams" of electrons moving towards the Sun (by the way, upriver's link showed clouds of positive ions moving towards the Sun, a phenomenom that is observed on the Earth as well), only to save your preconcieved conclusion ("large-scale current") from observations that do not support it (no electrons moving towards the Sun are detected).
Why would such a stream be intermittent?

And since we can observe transitory phenomena, like jets of particles from magnetic reconnection events or clouds of positive ions "falling" into the Sun, how come we cannot detect just those electrons that would close the "circuit"?

Based on the observations isn't simply the conclusion "large-scale current centered on the Sun" refuted?


It could, or it couldn't.
The answer lies in quantitative estimates of this net flow of electrons and of the sensitivity of the instruments.
If you did such estimates, the "could" would become either "can" or "cannot".

It remains open because you do not perform the necessary work to find the answer.
The burden of proof is yours.


Above there is only more hand-waving, and here you missed my point.
The probes can detect jets of charged particles (especially electrons) in the Solar Wind and clouds of ions "falling" towards the Sun: why shouldn't they be able to detect electrons moving towards the Sun?



What would convince you that the EU model is not correct?


I explained above: you stopped at "the net difference could go unnoticed"; scientists would try to transform that "could" into a "can" or "cannot".
Yes, the exact numbers of "too low" are the deciding factor: if the instruments can detect the net flow of electrons, then the EU model is incorrect, because it made a quantitative prediction (net flow electrons) refuted by observation (no net flow detected).


I explained how my points are relevant.
Show that they are irrelevant.

Based on your answers, I would say that the EU model fails the experimental tests, hence it is incorrect.


I already discussed it:
the glow discharge "model" requires the Sun and the Heliopause to have opposite charges, producing a voltage across the Solar System, which makes ions move away from the Sun and electrons move towards the Sun.
Neither a net charge of the Sun nor a net electric current through the Solar System are observed, hence that model is incorrect.


The glow discharge model, as you presented it, fails miserably.


What do they make of the evidence, if they have no quantitative predictions to compare them to?
How can you think of discussing critical points, if do not go beyond hand-waving and uninformed guesses?
Let me ask you again, what specifically would convince you that the EU model is wrong?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

That does not change the fact the flow is composed of neutral Helium atoms.
So, again, how is that a current?

Very, very bad analogy.
A wire is composed of positive ions embedded in a lattice srtucture and (quasi-)free electrons, that is, the particles that can move freely throughout the wire are charged.
The interstellar flow crossing the Solar System is made of neutral He atoms: the particles that move through the Solar System are not charged.



How is the difference between the speed of pressure waves and the average speed of gas molecules relevant?
My guess -- since you have not bothered with an explanation -- is that it is irrelevant.


Energy transfer via ac electromagnetic waves.
Are you trying to say that the galactic center transfers energy to the Sun via ac waves in the interstellar flow intercepted by the heliosphere?
Pity that the interstellar flow reaching the Sun is made of neutral particles.

Or are you saying that the charged particles particles of the interstellar flow makes charges at the heliopause oscillate, inducing an oscillation of the charge of the Sun?
Pity that ther is no trace of such an ac current throught the Solar System.

I see no explanation whatsoever about the relevance of the links you provided.
You'll have to do much better than that.

And you should start being clearer about what you are trying to say.
Being cryptic is not good science.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

I bow to your superior wisdom. Why would anybody even try to compete with your profound intellect?

Thank you for enlightening me.

Plasma Cosmology
Tiocfaidh Ar La

"You'd make a wonderful science teacher!"

Do I sense sarcasm here?
I was not aware this was some sort of competition.

It is a matter of looking at the available experimental data and compare it to what theories say.
The "mainstream" view of the Solar System fits much better the observations than the view proposed by the EU/PC supporters.


You are quite welcome.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Well, thanks.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to help us with the translation, Sparky56? It looks like Irish Gaelic, something about 'until the day comes'?

I don't see any direct evidence that the current is zero (at least that is what I think you meant to say instead of "no zero net current"), and anyway how can anyone be sure the current is zero?

Sure I can, it's bad science, but assuming a zero current is also bad science.

That's a nitpick, it doesn't matter where you start, it's showing that is is possible that matters. You start with a zero net current assumption.

Like all electric circuits, oscillations are ubiquitous, just like "shorts" and intermittency and "noise".


I'm not sure where you decided that these clouds falling towards the Sun are composed of positive ions, I can't find the infromation.

Based on what observations?


Ok, so I'll have to find the specification, any suggestions?



They do, only not all the time and in great numbers.

Difficult to answer at the moment, what would convince you it is correct?

All the posts you supplied thusfasr have me thoroughly confused. I can't answer them all, I don't have the time to pore over all of your very lengthy posts (including the lenghty posts I was forced to make). I'll stop answering to the these points, they are a waste of time.


No, no, you missed the crucial point. We must first talk about the correct interpretation of the diagram.

From Sun to heliospheric boundary we have:

Solar surface
Corona
Interplanetary space
Heliospheric boundary.

In the diagram from Cobine of a glow discharge we have:

Anode
Sheath (or double layer)
Positive column
Sheath
Cathode

The positive column compares to the solar wind, that's the region where particles of opposite charge can both flow outward and where the weak electric field is found. The weakness of the field, and thus the small size of the net difference in negative and positive particles, has kept us from detecting it (or so I'm trying to show), and the double layers (corona and heliopsheric boundary) perform the acceleration of particles.

And another thing; if I fail to show to you how the EU model fits observations it doesn't automatically mean the model is incorrect, it merely shows my failure.

The existence of a current flow is a critical part of the model, even if the exact numbers are absent, it should be possible to falsify the concept. And because most think it has already been falsified, it is important to point to the loopholes and try and find supporting evidence.

Cheers.


P.S I'm aware I missed your previous post (or was it the next one), I'm trying to keep the responses in a single post each time, otherwise we have split into two discussions.

The probes have instruments to measure currents: within the sensitivity of these instruments, they did not measure any net current in the Solar Wind.
Unless you can show that the net current predicted by EU models (wait, they cannot do quantitative predictions because EU proponents do not have a mathematical model, as you admitted), you have to accept the experimental, or show specifically where the measurements are wrong.

Now, what would you accept as evidence that there is no net current in the Solar Wind?


Wrong.
Concluding that there is no net current is consistent with experimental results: this is good science.
Assuming that there is some net current which is somehow undetectable, without considering the expected amount of that current and the sensitivity of the instruments: this is bad science.

Until you come up with some quantitative estimates for both the sensitivity of the instruments and the expected net current, you have no basis to speculate that the net current is somehow undetectable.


No, the zero current is an observation, not an assumption.
Despite this experimental result you assume that there is a "large-scale current centered on the Sun", and come up with some hypothesis to fit this assumption with the observations.



You assume that you can make analogies with conventional electric circuits: that's not good enough.
Again, specifically why should such a stream be intermittent?


You are right.
korjik said regarding that link: "Yes, we know plasma is affected by magnetic fields, and yes, we know the fields around the sun are very dynamic. considering the ion precipitation into the Earths ionosphere, it isnt suprising that the sun would do it occasionally too."
Somehow I connected those clouds of plasma with positive ions.

Anyway, since we can observe transitory phenomena, such a jets of particles and "plasma clouds" falling towards the Sun (coronal inflows), why wouldn't we be able to detect intermittent streams of electrons?


Those observations that measure the composition of the Solar Wind, the speed and direction of motion of the particles that compose it.
The observations are not consistent with a "large-scale current centered on the Sun".


You could try asking NASA and ESA, and some research on preprint servers (if you do not have online access to peer-reviewed journals).
Of course libraries are also a good place to start.


Jets from reconnection events, from coronal mass ejections and solar flares also do not happen all the time and in great numbers, yet we can observe them.
But somehow we miss all and only those intermittent streams of electrons moving towards the Sun: do you have a scientifically valid reason to propose such an idea?


If the EU model was able to explain all the phenomena explained in the "mainstream" model, and more.
Exactly as any other scientific theory since Galileo.


What's to be confused about? My points deal with the comparison of the EU model with the observations.
You declared them irrelevant, but you did not explain why they are irrelevant.
As Nereid pointed out, answers like "I don't know" are acceptable, but dodging the questions is not.


That's not how a glow discharge works.
In a glow discharge there is a net current flowing throughout the plasma (positive charges in one direction + negative charges in the opposite direction = net current). Ions do not drag the electrons with them: both move under the influence of the electric field.
Therefore the glow discharge diagram cannot be applied to the Solar System.

Also, this claim of yours:
is exactly that sort of claim that requires quantitative estimates to be supported.
The burden of proof is yours:
1) provide quantitative estimates for the electric field and for the net difference in negative and positive charges;
2) provide the sensitivity of the instruments and show that they cannot detect the electric field and the difference in charge density.
Stop hand-waving and provide the numbers.


I noticed that you have been discussing in this thread since the beginning, about two years ago.
Are you saying that in all this time you have not been able to study the EU model well enough to speak about it correctly?


The only loopholes are in the EU model: until EU proponents do not make a quantitative prediction of this net current, which is so critical to their model, they can hand-wave away any experimental result they don't like, by claiming that instruments cannot detect the current.
This makes the EU model untestable, and so unscientific.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

the thing is though, if you have ions, then there must be electrons around somewhere!! where the heck are they!!

just how "sensitive" were these probes??

were they sent with the sole purpose of detecting any net currents in the first place?? if not what was the reason for the probes being sent in the first place?

to really have an honest and through investigation of the EU theory, i would think that any probe sent should have, as its priority mission, EU directives, and that the mission is set up by EU people, peroid.

how likely though is that hmmm!!

[QUOTE=north]the thing is though, if you have ions, then there must be electrons around somewhere!! where the heck are they!!

just how "sensitive" were these probes??

were they sent with the sole purpose of detecting any net currents in the first place?? if not what was the reason for the probes being sent in the first place?

to really have an honest and through investigation of the EU theory, i would think that any probe sent should have, as its priority mission, EU directives, and that the mission is set up by EU people, peroid.[quote]Would you like to specify the key aspects of such a mission - quantitatively, of course?

Specifically, how many probes? sent on what orbits? carrying what instruments and detectors?Rather unlikely I'd say ... to even plan such a mission, "EU people" need to step up the plate and do some quantitative work - as the two year history of this thread shows, there is no such work, of the last ~20 years or more.

Perhaps you will change that situation, north?

Work? What's that? You mean me? Well I... I... I just remembered I have to go do something else right now. See ya later.

Nereid you are brutal, but an excellent moderator.
signed- Brown nose tweep who is lazier than sin

They are there. Unfortunately for the EU proponents, they are moving away from the Sun, together with the ions.

That depends on the instruments used.

They measure composition of the Solar Wind: type of particles, speed and direction.
The reason for the probes is to do research.

The EU proponents cannot even provide quantitative predictions for their "models": how can they give any directive for the preparation of experiments?
How can they setup a mission, if they cannot even use the available data?

As long as the EU proponents keep not doing science?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

[QUOTE=Nereid][QUOTE=north]the thing is though, if you have ions, then there must be electrons around somewhere!! where the heck are they!!

just how "sensitive" were these probes??

were they sent with the sole purpose of detecting any net currents in the first place?? if not what was the reason for the probes being sent in the first place?

to really have an honest and through investigation of the EU theory, i would think that any probe sent should have, as its priority mission, EU directives, and that the mission is set up by EU people, peroid. just like to ask this question again, where are these electrons? it is agreed by even contemparary science that the solar-wind is made of ions(protons), so since that is true, then contemparary science must also consider the question of where are the electrons.


well it won't be me( at least quantitatively, but qualitatively sure) however could we not start from Hannes Alfvens book "COSMIC PLASMA" which has plenty of the quatitative work.

ISBN # 9-0277-1151-8

it is a start.

It seems that north has not followed the thread, and neither has he done some research of the googling type.

The Solar Wind is composed of both ions and electrons.
And the probes have instruments specifically designed to measure composition of the Solar Wind, by detecting speed and direction of motion of the charged particles composing it.

Now, why don't you address the questions asked you?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

i have , periodicly. i was just trying to get the gist of the discussion at this point. thats all. i probed.

yes i know. i was just wondering why "electrons" and there detectability was such a problem.

fair enough. and what were the results?

i assume being the good scientist that you are and being open minded as you should be, you will read Hanns book, right.

not surprised really. so we have ions and electrons moving away from the Sun. is the postion of where the ions and electrons originate from known? north pole,south pole, equator etc. or all three.

or how they are calibrated



from what and/or who's perspective??

so your problem with EU is about "predictions"?? i don't know how many times observations by Hubble or other telescopes has shown things that go on in the Universe that contemparary "models" don't predict either. weak point.

well i tell you what, give EU 10yrs access to the facilities that contemporary astronomy and/or astrophysics has, right now and in the future, with no restrictions, the science will come. for or against.

Every time we have a solar flare, the Goes satellites keep track. Ions and electrons from flares can come from even the other side, I believe.

the solar-wind though is continuous. although it has times when it is more intense.

hense the importance of Earths magnetoshpere.

The only people having problems with electrons, are the EU proponents.
They support the idea that there are electrons moving towards the Sun, despite the fact that the probes find no trace of such electrons.
Of course, the lack of quantitative estimates for electron flow from the EU proponents leaves them room to claim that it is too small to be detected.


You can follow the links on the NASA and ESA websites.

I'll start with R. M. Kulsrud, Plasma Physics for Astrophysics (ISBN 0-691-12073-0).



Remember this?
The Solar Wind is composed of ions and electrons, and streams in all directions from the Sun.


Science.


My "problem" with EU proponents is that they are not doing science.
They present claims that cannot be tested, and if observations do not fit their expectations they simply declare the observations erroneous, biased ("to really have an honest and through investigation of the EU theory, i would think that any probe sent should have, as its priority mission, EU directives, and that the mission is set up by EU people") or unable to detect what they "predict".
They do not accept that the current observations disprove their ideas, so they grasp at straws to come up with excuses ("undetectable net currents", "intermittent streams of electrons").


If EU proponents were able -- had been able to develop scientifically viable models, researchers would have and would be testing them.
Your "give EU 10yrs access to the facilities that contemporary astronomy and/or astrophysics has, right now and in the future, with no restrictions" is just a lame excuse to mask the EU proponent's failure to do proper science. Their proposals failed as scientific idea, but they won't admit it.
If EU-based theories are valid, they will be found and tested succesfully, sooner or later.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

so far then it seems your right, but in all fairness EU gets little serious support. perhaps someday someone will dig in a little deeper quantitatively, i hope so, really.


You can follow the links on the NASA and ESA websites.

i will order the book.



still i'd like to see the details


how can they do, truely through science. they lack the facilities and computer power. think of your position of access, as a luxury they don't have. a shame really.


("to really have an honest and through investigation of the EU theory, i would think that any probe sent should have, as its priority mission, EU directives, and that the mission is set up by EU people") or unable to detect what they "predict".
of course they don't accept current observations and neither would you if you were in there shoes. for they have no control on the observations taken and/or direct access to the info that comes in. its a Natural reaction, no true scientist would be any different.


i disagree. what would your reaction be to an undergraduate or even a four or sixth year astrophysics student coming to you and saying " this is my thesis, EU". the way you have been so far, i'm sure you would discourage, strongly, this student from researching this particular avenue. in truth.


again that is not true. and you know it. the only Reason that you can argue the points that you have is "BECAUSE" of your access and facilities over many years.


why should they admit it, i wouldn't and nor would you, to be truthful. you have a theory, you can't explore it fully and by your control and at the same time people are telling you that you are wrong. they or who ever won't admit failer? no kidding, no brainer.

the word "later" is the key.

EU gets little support because what has come out of it does not fit with the observations.


Try the preprint server, and look for papers accepted by journals.


They don't need luxury.
To develop a proper model and test it against the observations does not require access to facilities.
In the worst case they can contact the responsible of the experiments and ask them for information.
If you can post here, you should have enough to develop a model (there is even a "Questions and answers" forum).


They don't need "control" over the observations.
If they wanted, they could obtain enough information about the instruments and the observations to check whether the experiments have been conducted properly and the interpretations are valid: that's what happens in peer-review.
The lack of "direct access" is simply an excuse: if the published results do not match their pre-concieved ideas, they reject them as unreliable.
Don't forget that agencies like NASA and ESA are publicly funded, so they have to report to the public.


If I was paying him to do something else, I would not accept it.
Otherwise, I would first check what exactly his thesis is about.
You cannot simply generalize.


You mean, because I have studied Physics for many years?
What keeps EU proponents from doing the same?


Why? Because you would not be able to admit a mistake?
How do you keep researching, if you won't admit mistakes if they happen? It would only get worse.

Still blaming the others?
Shouldn't you try and figure out whether the others are right when they point out mistakes?

Seriously, this idea that EU proponents cannot develop mathematical models because they have no access to experimental facilities and computer power is ridiculous.


I am curious to see whether "later" some EU proponent will come up with a proper model.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

What is observed on the sun;
Polar plumes and the polar plumes have waves that travel up them. I believe that they extend to the heliosphere.
Low and high speed coronal "winds".
Many types of dynamic "loop" events.
The neutral current sheet that has the shape of a ballerina skirt.
That winds-up at the heliosphere.
The are inflows and density increases of electrons at the loop footprints.

"MHD simulation of the three-dimensional structure
of the heliospheric current sheetAbstract. The existence of the radial component of the electric current flowing toward the Sun is revealed in numerical simulation. The total strength of the radial current is 3 * 109 A. The only way to full the electric current continuity is to close the radial electric current by means of feld- aligned currents at the polar region of the Sun."
http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/....pdf?access=ok

And the helioseismology of the sun I believe indicates current flowing in at the poles and out at the equator.
http://science.nasa.gov/solar/p_modes.htm

The thing is for this to work the sun has to be iron.
I dont know if it is hollow or solid or a neutron star remanant or whatever.

Its iron with a surface that seems to be glowing some parts and darker and cooler in other parts which fits with an electrical viewpoint.
An electrical current flow from pole to equator through an iron sun would produce all the observations.
Fusion on the surface would handle neutrinos and nucleosynthesis.
The electric field needs to be strong only far enough to get the particles off the sun.
Then they can be accelerated by Alfven waves.

"Alfven Wave Acceleration of the Solar Wind"
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/uvcs/yb/node76.html

Isnt it possible that just by the Solar system moving through our local plasma bubble, it could cause currents to flow and form a heliosphere.
Although I dont think that is the sole power source for our sun.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

What thing are you referring to? Have you discovered iron inside Jupiter or something?