With other distractions in the Real World, I've found it difficult to keep up with posting and comment moderation on a weekly schedule, so I'll be taking a hiatus for a few weeks. I've reached a point where I have a number of upcoming posts which are rather complex and I want to take the time to do them well. I want to include a number of supporting graphics that will make it easier for readers to understand, and harder for cranks to argue with.
In the meantime, I've also been listening to Stuart Robbin's "Exposing PseudoAstronomy" podcasts. Dr. Robbins covers a much broader range of topics than I, including such popular items as the Moon Landing hoax and Planet X. I'm working my way through the archive and am up through episode ten. Readers who would enjoy a broader range of bad/crank/pseudo-astronomy topics are encouraged to check out his podcasts and site.
I don't expect to be totally out of circulation and may make small posts to this site or on a number of forums that I follow.
In that vein, recently an interesting solar result was announced (Weak Solar Convection 100x Slower than Predicted) on Slashdot which became a target for Electric Sun supporters. I responded in some of the comment threads with links to Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists' to which I received a claim from Michael Mozina who directed me to his "The Surface of the Sun" site. There were a few easy-to-identify problems with Mozina's 'work', which I noted in the comment stream - the reliance on an uncalibrated 'first light' SDO image in JPEG format, and the questionable sunspot count 'data'. A more detailed analysis would rival my recent EU 'peer review' exercises (Electric Universe: Peer-Review Exercise 1, Electric Universe: Peer Review Exercise 2, Electric Universe: Peer Review Exercise 3, Electric Universe: Peer Review Exercise 4, Electric Universe: Peer Review Exercies 5), and has been added to my 'to do' list.
13 comments:
Here's a comment from an EU supporter. It's very weasely and trollish in how this guy is trying to get an EU discussion going:
"Forgive me for asking a basic question, if it is one. Assuming these observations are indeed correct, does this make any part of the idea of an electric sun more plausible than the current model of the sun? If string theory seems more like physics than magic, then why is even the direction of the idea toward an electric sun absurd?"
To ND,
Thankfully there are alternatives to string theory that don't have the difficulty of making testable predictions - though even the string theorists themselves understand the problem (and why they are occasionally the butt of jokes).
The problem, as I note in the link Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists' and supporting links from there, is that Electric Sun models have more severe problems that EU 'theorists' choose to ignore, and hope everyone else doesn't ask.
- Power the Sun with a Z-pinch and it creates a magnetic field at Earth's orbit that is far stronger than Earth's magnetic field, which would rip away the magnetosphere subjecting Earth to the full blast of the solar wind.
- Power the Sun like a cathode, and the particle flows and energy (just from simple conservation laws!) are strong enough to kill satellites and astronauts, a fact noted by a few satellite engineers who have looked at Electric Sun claims.
That is why no EU 'theorist' is designing satellites for NASA or any other space agency.
Note that all the 'problems' in the standard solar models are in areas where it is difficult to get reliable measurements or perform other tests. The standard model is actually very successful - we see the right number of solar neutrinos, proving the fusion energy source - we can even take sonograms of the far-side of the Sun, a trick very dependent on a reliable understanding of the solar interior. Can EU models do that? Where's their calculation of the solar neutrino flux? They don't exist because EU models don't work.
Saying that the current issues with the standard solar model are evidence for an externally electrically-powered sun is like claiming that the problems in understanding tornado formation is evidence that the Earth isn't round!
I've debated with a few of these guys to my very limited ability. A lot of them appear to either have no scientific background or are electrical engineers who think they're (astro)physicists (with all due respect to most EEs out there).
I like the first two points you make regarding the magnetic field strength and the particle flows.
When they get caught flat-footed with issues such as neutrinos, they end up fighting against established and accepted scientific research.
One can produces several papers in psychology based on these guys.
To ND,
Yes. Dunning & Kruger would have a field day with the EU crowd.
I too know many EEs who regard Electric Universe as laughable.
One particular manifestation of the psychological profile of your typical EU supporter/theorist is the idea that an anomaly is an automatic confirmation of EU theory.
The anomalously weak solar convection is a case in point. It doesn't take great physical insight to realize that if the solar corona is hotter than any other part of the Sun, then one goes from weak solar convection to zero solar convection in an electric sun model. Hence by supporting weak convection EU supporters are in reality debunking their own model.
TB>>"- Power the Sun like a cathode, and the particle flows and energy (just from simple conservation laws!) are strong enough to kill satellites and astronauts, a fact noted by a few satellite engineers who have looked at Electric Sun claims."
Where did you get that idea anyway?
>>W.T."Tom" Bridgman said..."To ND,
Yes. Dunning & Kruger would have a field day with the EU crowd.
I too know many EEs who regard Electric Universe as laughable."
That's probably because of the misinformation campaigns like you comparing EU/PC theory to creationism, when it's mainstream theory that is actually a 'creation mythology' and EU theory makes no predictions about the age of the universe. :) Talk about laughably absurd comparisons.
Hey Tom,
FYI, I'm looking forward to your critique of my website, particularly in light of recent SDO findings of walking speed convection rates, and an overall shape that is much more congruent with a solid surface:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120816150801.htm
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-unexpectedly-motions-sun-surface.html
That's not even the best part IMO. The most interesting information from SDO relates to the location of the base of the coronal loops with respect to the surface of the photosphere.
SDO shows the effect the coronal loops have of the surface of the photosphere as they rise up and through, and flow back into that surface. The patterns of magnetism on the surface of the photosphere that are caused by the current in the loops, also match up perfectly with the "bright points" seen in 1600A and 1700A, demonstrating a cause/effect link between the loops and the bright areas on that surface.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/sdo/mfield.mp4
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/sdo/hmi-171.mp4
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/sdo/discharge1600-131.mp4
The first image shows the magnetic field alignments on the surface of the photosphere using the HMI gear on SDO, overlaid with two iron ion wavelengths, 171A and 193A. What you'll observe is that the surface of the photosphere is black and white only in the areas where the largest loops are located, and those N/S alignments occur right along the trajectory of the loops, exactly as predicted by a subsurface origin of the loops. The second example demonstrates that this alignment occurs in other iron on wavelengths as predicted as well.
The third image is an SDO HMI continuum (white light) image overlaid with a 171A wavelength. You'll notice that the loops tend to flow right down along the penumbral filaments in this image, at exactly the right angles *if* (and only if) the loops are actually descending down into the photosphere. The orientation of 171 loops with the penumbral filaments is certainly no coincidence, it's directly related the orientation of the penumbral filaments. Again, this image is completely consistent with the transition region/subsurface stratification layer being located far under the photosphere. The alignment of the loops the penumbral filament angles would be meaningless if the loops were located a further 1200KM above the photosphere as LMSAL claims.
Pretty much every major prediction that I made related to coronal loop activity, based on very limited SOHO resolution imagery, has now been confirmed in 16 megapixel, high cadence, SDO images. It's not surprising then that many of their other "assumptions" about the shape of the sun and it's convection rates are falling apart as well. Technology is now the mainstream's worst enemy. :)
To Michael Mozina
TB>>>>"- Power the Sun like a cathode, and the particle flows and energy (just from simple conservation laws!) are strong enough to kill satellites and astronauts, a fact noted by a few satellite engineers who have looked at Electric Sun claims."
Mozina>> Where did you get that idea anyway?
Do the math (Death by Electric Universe. II. The Solar Capacitor Model). Technically it's inflow=outflow. Nature's basic accounting principles in particles and energy.
>>>>W.T."Tom" Bridgman said..."To ND,
Yes. Dunning & Kruger would have a field day with the EU crowd.
I too know many EEs who regard Electric Universe as laughable."
Mozina>>That's probably because of the misinformation campaigns like you comparing EU/PC theory to creationism, when it's mainstream theory that is actually a 'creation mythology' and EU theory makes no predictions about the age of the universe. :) Talk about laughably absurd comparisons.
I am nowhere near the 'age of the universe' question.
The problem EU has in the here-and-now is where does the energy come from that maintains the electric potential differences needed to drive the currents? If you're trying to hide behind something like 'they've always existed', then you are basically saying they are supernaturally-powered, invoking magic, in violation of established laboratory principles. This is one of the many characteristics that make EU like Creationism (The Electric Universe & Creationism). A pseudo-science is not 'Creationist' due to supporting a time of origin - it is 'Creationist' due to the reliance on supernatural agents to solve its many problems.
To Michael Mozina,
You still have not answered my challenge from the Slashdot thread. All you've posted here is just so much garbage as you have clearly conducted no actual measurements on the imagery and provided no reference for the LMSAL claim.
1) Astronomers do know about electric fields in space. I have written much on this topic.
(Electric Universe: Whither the Electric Currents?). EUers avoid acknowledging these facts probably because it would make their rally cry that astronomers ignore electric fields a clear lie.
2) The standard of science is the numerical results of the mathematical models must match the observations. If you claim the 'Birkeland' model works better than the standard model, then you must meet that same standard.
Where are the numerical results from the model you advocate?
Can you tell me the proton and electron density and energy or magnetic field at Earth's orbit predicted by your model and show how it is calculated?
Where is the solar spectrum computed from first principles by the model you advocate?
As noted, the lives of astronauts depend on you being able to demonstrate this!
If you can't meet that standard, or even provide a close match (less than a factor of 10?), then your model fails. Game over.
The ACTUAL track record of "Electric Sun" models making testable numerical predictions is dismal (Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists')
3) I see a number of errors on your page you reference. SDO first light images were not completely calibrated for intensity or scale information. Have you looked at more recent images on their site?
a) Doing science analysis on JPEG images or MPEG movies is just inviting embarrassment. You have to go back to the original data after the instrument has been calibrated.
b) Your sunspot data has obvious problems. Did you just make it up? And why only data to 1980? Are you trying to hide something about the more recent data?
Compare to the actual dataset: (Sunspot Number).
Since you have not addressed either of these problems in the nearly two months since this was originally posted on slashdot, should I assume you are intentionally committing scientific fraud?
TB>>You still have not answered my challenge from the Slashdot thread. All you've posted here is just so much garbage as you have clearly conducted no actual measurements on the imagery and provided no reference for the LMSAL claim.
In terms of the reference for the LMSAL claims about the base of loops, you'll find it here:
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/tracepr2.htm
FYI, they actually said the base of millions degree loops begin 1000 - 1500 *miles* above the photosphere, not kilometers in solar moss events. My bad.
TB>>1) Astronomers do know about electric fields in space. I have written much on this topic.
(Electric Universe: Whither the Electric Currents?). EUers avoid acknowledging these facts probably because it would make their rally cry that astronomers ignore electric fields a clear lie.
You know...
I'd rather we at least *try* to keep the conversation a little friendly and devoid of all the "loaded language* (lie, fraud, yada, yada yada). Clearly we have a lot of things to discuss on this topic, and clearly we have disagreements of opinions, but I'm not suggesting that you're a 'liar' due to those honest differences of opinion.
Unlike Birkeland, the mainstream does *not* recognize the presence of charge separation between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere. That is in fact a *fundamental* difference between standard theory and Birkeland's cathode sun. Birkeland's model "predicts" the presence of "electrical discharges" in the solar atmosphere that are powered by a charge separation that exists between the sun and space, not simply internally changing magnetic fields. We do at least have to acknowledge some fundamental differences between mainstream solar theory and Birkeland's cathode solar model. When you say that you "know" about the electrical fields in space, do you also agree with Birkeland that the sun acts as a cathode with respect to (interstellar) space?
TB>>2) The standard of science is the numerical results of the mathematical models must match the observations. If you claim the 'Birkeland' model works better than the standard model, then you must meet that same standard.
The problem Tom is that the mainstream's "magnetic reconnection" theories are entirely dependent upon jet speed convection. Without fast convection, standard solar theory is falsified. You seem to not have addressed that SDO heliosceismology data with respect to the failures of your mathematical models. If math is king, how come you're not concerned about the falsified quantification aspects of your own theory? Whereas Birkeland's cathode sun was in no way dependent upon convection as a source of energy to explain the 'electrical discharges' in the solar atmosphere, that revelation of slow convection speeds is *devastating* to mainstream mathematical models.
Have you taken any time to read Birkeland's original terella experiments? Many of his mathematical models would be applicable to this discussion. If you haven't read his work, you might want to familiarize yourself with it before you critique my website. He did in fact "quantify" large parts of a cathode sun model as it relates to atmospheric behaviors.
FYI, sorry about breaking apart my responses, but I'm running into the 4096 character limit.
TB>>3) I see a number of errors on your page you reference. SDO first light images were not completely calibrated for intensity or scale information. Have you looked at more recent images on their site?
They were certainly "calibrated" by the engineers that designed and build the equipment to give their best approximation (from the ground) prior to launch. I've looked a *years* worth of SDO images at this point in time and I've talked about some of the correlations between the activity observed in various wavelengths, particularly between the loops and the surface of the photosphere. Those loops leave bright areas on the surface of the photosphere where the exit and reenter the surface of the photosphere. The magnetic field alignments observed by SDO are directly related to the direction of the flow of current in the loop as it exits or enters the surface. In fact with Helioviewer it's possible (and I showed some examples) to put several wavelengths and magnetogram images together to see how they all align with one another, right down the the loops aligning themselves with the penumbral filaments around sunspots.
TB>>a) Doing science analysis on JPEG images or MPEG movies is just inviting embarrassment. You have to go back to the original data after the instrument has been calibrated.
Of course.
TB>>b) Your sunspot data has obvious problems. Did you just make it up? And why only data to 1980?
Are you trying to hide something about the more recent data?
Compare to the actual dataset: (Sunspot Number).
You sound just a "wee" paranoid. :) No, I didn't make it up, I simply selected an image or data set that showed whatever it was I was trying to show at the time. Apparently whatever argument I was making with that particular data wasn't all that critical in terms of up to date sunspot numbers at the time I wrote it. Keep in mind that some (most) of the material on my website is now about 7 years old, particularly the early blog entries.FYI, I have a life that has nothing to do with slashdot. I gave you weeks of slack here while you were on vacation you know. ;)
FYI, it might behoove us to at least "try" to make this a friendly conversation. It might be easier to "hear" one another if we at least attempt to keep things civil between us. I'd certainly rather we focus on the science and keep the emotional trash talking to a minimum. I'll try to at least attempt to understand your ideas clearly before brushing them off, and I would appreciate it if you would afford me that same courtesy.
Responses to Mr. Mozina's comments in this thread are being addressed in a series of posts here.
Post a Comment