Global eruption rocks the sun

Dec 14, 2010 By Dr. Tony Phillips
NASA's twin STEREO spacecraft surround the sun.

On August 1, 2010, an entire hemisphere of the sun erupted. Filaments of magnetism snapped and exploded, shock waves raced across the stellar surface, billion-ton clouds of hot gas billowed into space. Astronomers knew they had witnessed something big.

It was so big, it may have shattered old ideas about solar activity.

"The August 1st event really opened our eyes," says Karel Schrijver of Lockheed Martin's Solar and Astrophysics Lab in Palo Alto, CA. "We see that solar storms can be global events, playing out on scales we scarcely imagined before."

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

For the past three months, Schrijver has been working with fellow Lockheed-Martin solar physicist Alan Title to understand what happened during the "Great Eruption." They had plenty of data: The event was recorded in unprecedented detail by NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory and twin . With several colleagues present to offer commentary, they outlined their findings at a press conference today at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.

Explosions on the sun are not localized or isolated events, they announced. Instead, solar activity is interconnected by magnetism over breathtaking distances. , tsunamis, coronal mass ejections--they can go off all at once, hundreds of thousands of miles apart, in a dizzyingly-complex concert of mayhem.

"To predict eruptions we can no longer focus on the magnetic fields of isolated active regions," says Title, "we have to know the surface magnetic field of practically the entire sun."

This revelation increases the work load for space weather forecasters, but it also increases the potential accuracy of their forecasts.

"The whole-sun approach could lead to breakthroughs in predicting solar activity," commented Rodney Viereck of NOAA's Center in Boulder, CO.

"This in turn would provide improved forecasts to our customers such as electric power grid operators and commercial airlines, who could take action to protect their systems and ensure the safety of passengers and crew."

In a paper they prepared for the Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR), Schrijver and Title broke down the Great Eruption into more than a dozen significant , flares, filament eruptions, and CMEs spanning 180 degrees of solar longitude and 28 hours of time. At first it seemed to be a cacophony of disorder until they plotted the events on a map of the sun's magnetic field.

Title describes the Eureka! moment: "We saw that all the events of substantial coronal activity were connected by a wide-ranging system of separatrices, separators, and quasi-separatrix layers." A "separatrix" is a magnetic fault zone where small changes in surrounding plasma currents can set off big electromagnetic storms.

Locations of key events are labeled in this extreme ultraviolet image of the sun, obtained by the Solar Dynamics Observatory during the Great Eruption of August 1st. White lines trace the sun's magnetic field. Credit: K Schrijver & A. Title.

Researchers have long suspected this kind of magnetic connection was possible. "The notion of 'sympathetic' flares goes back at least three quarters of a century," they wrote in their JGR paper. Sometimes observers would see flares going off one after another--like popcorn--but it was impossible to prove a link between them. Arguments in favor of cause and effect were statistical and often full of doubt.

"For this kind of work, SDO and STEREO are game-changers," says Lika Guhathakurta, NASA's Living with a Star Program Scientist. "Together, the three spacecraft monitor 97% of the sun, allowing researchers to see connections that they could only guess at in the past."

To wit, barely two-thirds of the August event was visible from Earth, yet all of it could be seen by the SDO-STEREO fleet. Moreover, SDO's measurements of the sun's magnetic field revealed direct connections between the various components of the Great Eruption—no statistics required.

Much remains to be done. "We're still sorting out cause and effect," says Schrijver. "Was the event one big chain reaction, in which one eruption triggered another--bang, bang, bang--in sequence? Or did everything go off together as a consequence of some greater change in the sun's global magnetic field?"

Further analysis may yet reveal the underlying trigger; for now, the team is still wrapping their minds around the global character of solar activity. One commentator recalled the old adage of three blind men describing an elephant--one by feeling the trunk, one by holding the tail, and another by sniffing a toenail. Studying the sun one sunspot at a time may be just as limiting.

"Not all eruptions are going to be global," notes Guhathakurta. "But the global character of can no longer be ignored."

As if the wasn't big enough already...

Explore further: Planetary Society hopes tiny satellite sets sail above Earth

Related Stories

The Sun Loses its Spots

Jul 24, 2007

While sidewalks crackle in the summer heat, NASA scientists are keeping a close eye on the sun. It is almost spotless, a sign that the Sun may have reached solar minimum. Scientists are now watching for the ...

Understanding coronal mass ejections

Oct 29, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The corona of the sun is the hot (over a million kelvin), gaseous outer region of its atmosphere. The corona is threaded by intense magnetic fields that extend upwards from the surface in ...

Sneak Attacks from the Sun

Dec 08, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Our Sun can be a menace when it sends out powerful solar blasts of radiation towards the Earth. Astronomers keenly watch the Sun to learn more about what powers these solar eruptions, in hopes ...

Recommended for you

Tidal forces gave moon its shape, according to new analysis

7 hours ago

The shape of the moon deviates from a simple sphere in ways that scientists have struggled to explain. A new study by researchers at UC Santa Cruz shows that most of the moon's overall shape can be explained by taking into ...

User comments : 42

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Raveon
3.7 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2010
Doesn't surprise me. I've said before that the sun was probably capable of eruptions on a scale we have never seen. I think that it is capable of sending flares our way that can be extremely dangerous. Couple that rare event at a time when our magnetic field is down and it could be a cause of global extinction, past and future.
HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (16) Dec 14, 2010
Now is the time to think about the simplest cause for this observation: That a galactically-sourced electric current is causing all of these events to happen to begin with.

Our theorists need to revisit the cautionary words of Hannes Alfven about this concept of magnetic reconnection. They need to revisit their high school textbooks, where we all learned that magnetic fields are caused by electric currents.

Mankind has repeatedly tried to put a box around electricity in space. When Chapman tried to do the same for the Earth, Kristian Birkeland's theory of "corpuscles" emanating from the Sun would turn out to be the proper cause for the aurora.

This latest attempt to pretend that the Sun's electricity is boxed in is no different. One need only look at the existence of intergalactic magnetic fields to infer that the Earth is connected to the Sun, which is in turn connected to the galaxy, which are turn strung together like pearls on a string - exactly how plasmas behave in the lab.
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 14, 2010
Hannes Alfven had a habit of visiting all of his researchers, one at a time, to discuss their findings. Oftentimes, he would observe frustration over a problem that had already been solved just down the hallway a few months ago. He would frequently tell people that the solution to their problem can be found if they just walk down the hallway.

Solar physicists need to walk down the hallway into the nearest plasma laboratory and rethink their plasma models. The cosmic plasma models have been engineered to suit the Big Bang Theory's needs: These models erroneously treat plasmas as though they are controlled by gravity.

Theorists today prefer to imagine that the Theory of Everything is elusive because it is a difficult problem. But, the truth is that the obstacles to solving the biggest mysteries in the universe are entirely human in origin. We are stymied by our own arrogance, preferences, prejudices and an unwillingness to admit when we are wrong.
technicalengeneering
3.8 / 5 (5) Dec 14, 2010
simplest..... uhm
Bitflux
3.5 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2010
"entire hemisphere" my ass.
Royale
5 / 5 (5) Dec 14, 2010
Wow! a spam message with a Chinese name? That's unheard of! Too bad the "great firewall" doesn't work both ways.
Bitflux, you wouldn't call almost half the face of the sun a "hemisphere"? Perhaps they could have used a better word than eruption, making it seem like our lives were in danger. I think I would have went with 'pop' because it didn't erupt like a volcano, and it didn't eject half the sun away. Hmm, I guess it's just hard to make up a short title that won't give someone a mental image that isn't even close to what the article is talking about.
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (15) Dec 14, 2010
Re: "simplest..... uhm"

Complex: Magnetic reconnection can explain the Sun's inverse-temperature at the corona.

Simple: The temperature is higher at the corona because the energy is arriving externally.

Complex: The solar wind fails to appreciably decelerate even as it passes the Earth's orbit.

Simple: The solar wind is not a "wind" at all; it is charged particles subjected to an electric field centered at the Sun.

Complex: Magnetic fields which permeate intergalactic space can be explained by "new physics" concepts.

Simple: Magnetic fields are the result of electric currents.

Enigmatic: The solar wind's speed is observed to change over time.

Simple solution: A time-varying electric field.

Enigmatic: Anomalous redshifts are observed by Gerrit Verschuur to be affiliated with "high-velocity clouds" of interstellar HI hydrogen (at 50 km/s and 35 km/s, in particular).

Simple solution: Plasmas naturally form filaments which transfer charged particles, and these redshifts are CIV's
Baseline
1.8 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2010
There seems to be so much we don't know or understand about our own Sun, yet we use our incomplete knowledge to interpret the rest of the universe as well. This reminds me of the old programmers axiom; Garbage in equals garbage out.
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 14, 2010
Complex: Neutron stars.

Simple: Relaxation oscillator.

Enigmatic: Galactic rotation curves require extra hypothetical, invisible dark matter to explain.

Simple: Shoot two plasma focus devices at one another and observe the same rotation curves.

Enigmatic: Neutrinos appear to anti-correlate with sunspot numbers, even though there's supposed to be many thousands of years of latency between them.

Simple: The neutrinos are being generated near the sunspots.

Difficult to stomach: Gerrit Verschuur observes that interstellar hydrogen appears to form spaghetti-like filamentary structures which extend over great distances. These structures are called "clouds" by conventional theorists.

Simple: Plasmas conducting electrical current naturally form filaments with a long-range attraction and short-range repulsion within the laboratory.
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 14, 2010
Complex and metaphysical: The microwave fog which comes at us from all directions must be a relic of a primordial Big Bang which started all of time and space.

Simple: Plasma beams naturally emit synchrotron microwave emissions. Thermalizing this synchrotron into a black body bell curve can be theorized in a number of ways which require no "new physics" explanations.

Complex: Gravitational accretion models run into problems.

Simple: Marklund Convection associated with plasma filaments will scavenge ions like an ion pump, in the process dragging neutral matter with it like a bladeless ion fan.

Complex: The universe is filamentary on numerous scales of observation.

Prediction Confirmed: When it became known that plasma was the universe's preference for a state of matter, Alfven predicted these filaments on the largest scales.

Yes, simple.
Terrible_Bohr
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 14, 2010
There seems to be so much we don't know or understand about our own Sun, yet we use our incomplete knowledge to interpret the rest of the universe as well. This reminds me of the old programmers axiom; Garbage in equals garbage out.


We never have the whole story about what is going on, so do you propose we stop making observations deep into space? Do we just give up?

The whole point of science is to derive hypothesis from the best information we have on hand. We can discard falsified models as we learn more in time.
Physmet
4.9 / 5 (9) Dec 14, 2010
There seems to be so much we don't know or understand about our own Sun, yet we use our incomplete knowledge to interpret the rest of the universe as well. This reminds me of the old programmers axiom; Garbage in equals garbage out.


If were up to the "why do we waste our money on X" people, we'd never learn a darn thing. Yes, our money could be well spent studying our sun more, but not everyone has the knowledge for it or interest in it. Some people focus on one area of research, while others research other areas. It may not be perfect, but allows us to inch forward in multiple areas at once.

I wish we could go and make direct observations of distant areas of the universe, but since we can't, researchers make use of what they can do. We should always ask questions, try to find answers, and hey...it's okay to dream too, right! :)
HannesAlfven
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 14, 2010
Re: "We never have the whole story about what is going on, so do you propose we stop making observations deep into space? Do we just give up?"

A better approach than the current one would be to re-fund the Big Bang's prior competitor -- plasma cosmology. This would inherently induce a context and a dialogue within which to consider both. Without any framework which is inherently different to compare it against, people tend to choose the gravity-based cosmological framework simply because they know of no other.

When we consider paying $10 to see a movie, we oftentimes check what the critics have to say about it. But, these days, people tend not to seek out good criticisms of the Big Bang framework. To be clear, this is NOT because there are none.
HannesAlfven
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 14, 2010
Re: "The whole point of science is to derive hypothesis from the best information we have on hand. We can discard falsified models as we learn more in time."

This is overly-simplistic. In modern physics, ideas have their own inherent momentum. It's not so much about which ideas can be disproven, as it has over time become self-evident that highly mathematical models can be tweaked in a million ways to reflect the data in an ad hoc manner.

Human beliefs about the universe tend to be affected more by our pre-existing scientific beliefs. Whatever theor(ies) we decide to teach the younger generation will be advanced by them and even vigorously defended. So, the decision to not teach competing ideas to the younger generation is really the ultimate decision point at which conventional ideas become solidified.

This dogma tends to be completely impervious to any observation which discounts the theory. This is called cognitive dissonance, and humans are real jedi's at such mind tricks.
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (8) Dec 14, 2010
One tiny snag, Hannes: The solar wind creates a vast bubble which mostly excludes external magnetic fields. IIRC, one of the Voyagers has just reached the transition zone...
Benjo
3.3 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2010
How come none of our satellites were harmed or malfunctioned, in such a harsh solar flare?
HannesAlfven
2.2 / 5 (12) Dec 14, 2010
Re: "One tiny snag, Hannes: The solar wind creates a vast bubble which mostly excludes external magnetic fields. IIRC, one of the Voyagers has just reached the transition zone..."

In plasma physics, plasmas tend to exhibit (at least) three fundamental morphologies: filaments, cells and pinches.

The heliosphere -- this vast "bubble" which centers at the Sun -- predictably excludes external magnetic fields because plasmas (in the laboratory) tend to protect their charge with double layers.

Far from being some sort of observation which is enigmatic to an electric sun, the existence of the heliopause is REQUIRED by any assertion that the Sun is a glow discharge.

It saddens me greatly that people are so quick to argue against plasma cosmology without doing even minimal fact-checking on the behavior of laboratory plasmas. Please don't take offense, but charge sheaths and double layers are literally some of the most fundamental plasma physics concepts that we could possibly discuss.
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2010
Is this the HannesAlfven Channel now? Dude, give it a rest.
Terrible_Bohr
5 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2010
The point is that having information is superior than lacking it. Being mistaken about what the information means is very probable, but at least it's there. We can't sit around until we perfect a model of any complex system before we start to extrapolate it out to the rest of the universe. We'd all be long dead before the scientific community reached a consensus on anything.
Bog_Mire
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2010
HannesAlfven, I am willing to read and try and understand this theory. Can you post a link that will help me get there?
HannesAlfven
2.4 / 5 (11) Dec 14, 2010
Re: "HannesAlfven, I am willing to read and try and understand this theory. Can you post a link that will help me get there?"

You could start here ...

http://www.plasma...erse.com

or here ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info
http://www.holoscience.net
http://www.electric-cosmos.org

Or, if you are subscribed to IEEE, you can read IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Sciences -- a journal which still publishes on the subject of plasma cosmology (IEEE is the world's largest scientific institution, btw).

Hannes Alfven's "Cosmic Plasma" is considered a primer, as is Anthony Peratt's textbook on plasmas.

Since the electric sun model is based upon the glow discharge model and laboratory plasma physics, Wal Thornhill suggests reading "Gaseous Conductors" by JD Cobine. Once you *fully* understand how a Crooks Tube works, you understand the fundmtnls of the Sun (with a spherical geometry).

There is also Don Scott's "The Electric Sky" and Thornhill's "The Electric Universe.
HannesAlfven
2.5 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2010
Re: "Is this the HannesAlfven Channel now? Dude, give it a rest."

The Electric Universe theory has been banned on wikpipedia for many years now.

The BAUTForum is where good ideas go to die. None of those people are even trying to exemplify a philosophical approach.

There are videos up on YouTube and Google Video.

There are peer-reviewed papers published regularly in IEEE, but people seem disinterested in learning how plasmas behave in the laboratory.

How do yo convince somebody to pay attention? To learn what a plasma does in the laboratory, so that they can notice it when they see it in space?

It's a circular loop: People refuse to learn what a plasma does, and then fail to recognize that characteristic behavior in space.

Then, when somebody speaks up about it, these same people argue against them. But, they decided not to learn what a plasma does to begin with. So, why do they argue?

Why don't they just learn what plasmas do? And THEN argue?
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2010
Make that holoscience.COM, btw ...
GSwift7
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2010
@ Hannes:

The electric universe theory is covered under plasma cosmology in wiki.

Plasma cosmology had its time when people took it more seriously. The way science works is that people propose a theory. Then everyone (including the person who proposed the theory) attempts to find any evidence, even one case, where observations exclude the theory. At that point the theory is either altered or discarded. The cosmic microwave background is a big problem for plasma cosmology, because it's not predicted, but it fits the big bang and general relativity exactly as the theory predicted. When COBE data finally came in, it was the final nail in the coffin for plasm cosmology, because it exactly matched the predictions of relativity. Almost every test we know how to do suggests that general relativity most accurately describes our universe. Plasma cosmology has been found inconsistent with reality in several key ways. That's why nobody talks about it on galactic scales any more.
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2010
Re: "The cosmic microwave background is a big problem for plasma cosmology, because it's not predicted, but it fits the big bang and general relativity exactly as the theory predicted. When COBE data finally came in, it was the final nail in the coffin for plasm cosmology, because it exactly matched the predictions of relativity."

I'm sorry, but any plasma physicist will tell you that plasma beams ALWAYS emit microwaves. If you are surrounded by filamentary plasmas conducting electrical current, then you should EXPECT to see a microwave fog. So, no, it is simply untrue that plasma cosmology does not predict a microwave fog. And the very fact that people claim it suggests that they know next to nothing of the behavior of plasmas within the laboratory.

To be clear, lab plasmas emit spikey *synchrotron* emissions. However, there are many theoretical ways in which this synchrotron microwave can be thermalized into a black body bell curve. There is no "new physics" in explaining it.
HannesAlfven
2.5 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2010
Re: "Almost every test we know how to do suggests that general relativity most accurately describes our universe. Plasma cosmology has been found inconsistent with reality in several key ways. That's why nobody talks about it on galactic scales any more."

Actually, many unexpected cosmological observations have been made since Relativity was drafted by Einstein. You and others just choose to ignore them. They include, most notably:

1. The universe's dominant state of matter is not liquids, solids or gases. It is matter in the plasma state. This is vital because in the laboratory, plasmas are electromagnetic. We didn't find this out until the 50's, when we finally sent probes into space.

2. Magnetic fields have by now been observed to be affiliated with galaxies, AND they have been observed to permeate intergalactic space. In the laboratory, magnetic fields are caused by electric currents. To ignore this important observation exemplifies a bias against electricity in space.
HannesAlfven
2.5 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2010
One hopes that in our desire to understand our surroundings and the universe, that we will try our hardest to adopt a philosophical approach to evaluating theories. If your philosophical approach does not involve seeking out the best critics you can find for any purported idea, then you've essentially ignored philosophy of science in your attempt to discover truth.

The very fact that you believe that wikipedia is offering an unbiased view of this long-standing debate exemplifies the problem with your approach. Wikipedia claims to be nothing more than a summary of conventional wisdom. Accordingly, it is not the place to go when investigating controversial issues.

The better approach is to first understand what plasma cosmology and EU theory state by hearing out its claims and observing its predictions. Then, run these claims by mainstream advocates to see how they respond. Over time, you will come to see that the mainstream is dismissive and unattentive to these claims.
GSwift7
3.8 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2010
Well, I'm not a physicist, so I don't have an opinion either way.

I didn't just look at the wiki page. I never use that as my only source. If I did, I'd believe every claim about anthropogenic global warming, because wiki is a very biased source. You're exactly right about that part. Fortunately, wiki has links to the full text of source material about most subjects.

I do however trust Jim Peebles as an expert on the CMB (and it's unfortunate about that Nobel Prize business I think), and he says the nature of the CMB doesn't support your plasma theory. You really can't get around that, from what I have read. The math just doesn't seem to add up, if you'll excuse the pun.
HannesAlfven
2.4 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2010
Re: "I do however trust Jim Peebles as an expert on the CMB (and it's unfortunate about that Nobel Prize business I think), and he says the nature of the CMB doesn't support your plasma theory. You really can't get around that, from what I have read."

If your hope is to be unbiased, objective and philosophical in your approach, then you would try to keep an open mind on this long-standing debate long enough to learn both sides of the arguments.

At the point where you've decided to just inherit the views of an "expert", you've literally given up on trying to critically think about the debate. When you constrain your reading to that which agrees with conventional wisdom, you ignore the history of science -- which, without a doubt, demonstrates that consensus can indeed be wrong in huge ways.

Don't forget that up until as recent as 1986, conventional wisdom was that galaxies did not possess magnetic fields. Now they're trying to suggest that electric currents are not the cause.
HannesAlfven
2.4 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2010
Re: "The math just doesn't seem to add up, if you'll excuse the pun."

All cosmologies demand that they be evaluated on their own terms. Anybody who looks at cosmologies which compete with the Big Bang and demand that they prove their claims in precisely the same manner are completely misunderstanding the undeniable fact that cosmologies differ in the specific pieces of evidence they offer, as well as even the types of evidence that are offered.

Plasma cosmology (Pc) is an empirically-derived cosmology. That means that PC theorists do experiments on plasmas here on Earth, and use those results to interpret cosmic imagery. Since plasmas constitute 99%+ of all observable matter, and since they scale over enormous scales, this approach works well.

Clearly, this approach differs from that of the Big Bang.

When trying to understand something as complex as the microwave fog, we should try to hear out as many "experts" as we can. Favoring just one expert is not a philosophical approach
HannesAlfven
2.6 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2010
Also, it might help to mention the work of Gerrit Verschuur. Verschuur is one of the world's most famous radio astronomers. Radio astronomers tend to tune their radio telescopes to the 21-cm wavelength, which represents a subtle energy emission for hydrogen called HI.

The interstellar HI is in places oftentimes called "anomalous high-velocity clouds" by conventional theorists. But, Verschuur strenuously disagrees with this term "cloud". He says that the "clouds" are in fact spaghetti-like filaments which span great distances.

The reason they are anomalous is that they exhibit redshifts, which if interpreted as velocities, indicate impossibly fast movements at 50 and 35 km/s.

These redshifts are special because they are known as critical ionization velocities. In the lab, these specific redshifts appear when a neutral cloud of gas is slammed with a beam of charged particles.

Alfven predicted many years ago that these CIV's would be observed in space. They indicate ELECTRICITY.
HannesAlfven
2.4 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2010
We all decide what to believe at the moment we choose who to read or listen to. Plasma cosmology is NOT dead. IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Sciences still publish on this topic to this day. Astrophysicists and cosmologists just choose to not read IEEE, and so they are almost completely ignorant of the arguments made by plasma cosmologists.

Plasma cosmology can explain all of our most modern observations of space without the need for hypothetical, invisible matter like dark matter and dark energy.

There is clearly a philosophical burden to try to explain the universe with traditional physics before hypothesizing "new physics" explanations.

To argue that the CMB *must* be a relic of a primordial explosion which created all matter, space and time, without first checking to see if plasmas can naturally recreate these microwaves is a very questionable approach to science.

Clearly, the CMB interpretation is very "metaphysical", and metaphysics is supposed to be the last resort.
MrPressure
Dec 16, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Aristoteles
1 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2010
According to the Bible, the first man was perfect, made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). Luke goes so far as to call Adam the Son of God (Luke 3:38). In his allegorical novel, Voyage to Venus, C.S. Lewis1 paints a word picture of the dawn of history. He makes Adam resemble Jesus Christ. This is not far-fetched, for just as Christ, on earth in human form, was sinless, so Adam for a time, was sinless too...According to the Bible, the first man was perfect, made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). Luke goes so far as to call Adam the Son of God (Luke 3:38). In his allegorical novel, Voyage to Venus, C.S. Lewis1 paints a word picture of the dawn of history. He makes Adam resemble Jesus Christ. This is not far-fetched, for just as Christ, on earth in human form, was sinless, so Adam for a time, was sinless too.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2010
Weird how this brought out so many cranks yet Oliver K. Manuel isn't here. I was hoping for the full set.

Plasma Universe stuff is severely short on actual evidence. The whole idea that the Sun is powered by external sources is such crap its hard to describe adequately without referring to oh say The Thames prior to its clean up.
The better approach is to first understand what plasma cosmology and EU theory state by hearing out its claims and observing its predictions
Read the sites, did the research, found it wanting and even found evidence on some sites that they were lying to make it look like there was actual evidence for intergalactic currents.

So why did you change your handle Yep?

Hoping no one would remember? I see the sites still have a complete botch regarding Super Nova. It was crap when you posted this stuff a year ago and more. It's still the exact same crap.

Ethelred
mharratsc
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2010
@Ethelred:
"Plasma Universe stuff is severely short on actual evidence."

Show me 'dark matter'. Give me an output of 'dark energy' on a meter. Show me a 'graviton', or show me a functional tokamak reactor that is currently self-sustaining as the Sun supposedly is.

Works both ways there, pal. :P
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
1/3
Show me 'dark matter'.
Kind of hard to show you that since it's dark. HOWEVER there is VERY strong evidence for far more matter than can be seen. The claim by the Plasma Cranks that plasma is 99 percent of the Universe is just rubbish as can be seen in the rotation of galaxies which show they have at least twice as much matter as can be seen and gravitational lensing in galactic clusters which show even more non-visible mass.

That non-visible stuff. That is what is called dark matter. There MAY be more but right there that is quite a lot of mass that is dark. Far more then there is plasma.

More
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
2/3
Give me an output of 'dark energy' on a meter.
Why? I don't care for that myself but that won't magically make Plasma Universe nonsense real. Last time Yep and I had this out they wound up removing some the crap, specifically the lies I caught them in, from their sites but that Supernova nonsense is still there. They still can't invent a way to produce enough energy from currents in the Solar System to even get within an order of magnitude of the Suns actual measured output. And that is with currents that can't show existing much less actual measurable sources.
or show me a functional tokamak reactor that is currently self-sustaining as the Sun supposedly is.
Why? I a mean tokomaks are irrelevent to this.

Tokamaks aren't nearly million miles across are they? They don't have the mass to compress hydrogen to millions of degrees equally high pressures.

More
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
3/3

It takes a LOT of mass to produce energy from the Solar fusion cycle and it takes a LONG time for the energy from the reactions to reach the surface.

And it takes actual evidence not a lot of handwaving and hoping and even just plain lying to make a Crank Theory real.

The lies are when they claimed that there were actual measurements of intergalactic currents. They claimed Alfven made the measurements. Which is interesting since Alfven didn't have access to an intergalactic probe that would be needed to do such measurements. On top of which they had his papers on one of those sites. The papers said he CALCULATED those currents based on a lot of assumptions that are still unsupported by actual evidence. People that call calculations MEASUREMENTS are LIARS. Or complete imbeciles. Your pick. I suspect the latter. I don't think they knew the difference till I pointed it out.

Ethelred
mharratsc
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2010
You haven't done much research, bro. If you start with the notion that magnetic fields cannot be 'frozen in' to plasma, then you CAN make a determination of current in an intergalactic dusty plasma 'thread' based upon data received from radio telescopes.
"People that call calculations MEASUREMENTS are LIARS"
So which experiment did you conduct that measured the core temp of the Sun, hmm? o.O
Hoisted upon your own petard there, bud.
Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
You haven't done much research, bro.
I read those sites. I researched the real heat output of the Sun and compared it to the MOST that Plasma Nonsense can produce. They can't even force fit it.
If you start with the notion that magnetic fields cannot be 'frozen in' to plasma, then you CAN make a determination of current in an intergalactic dusty plasma 'thread' based upon data received from radio telescopes.
Only there are no such things. Currents cannot travel in cold dust nor in a gas where the particles are many centimeters apart. AND the currents need something to DRIVE it. Hard to do when the whole thing is at background temperature of 2.8K.

So which experiment did you conduct that measured the core temp of the Sun, hmm? o.O
Where did I say it was measured? No where.

Hoisted upon your own petard there, bud.
No. You have a reading problem. I never made that claim. Go ahead. Quote where I claimed a measurement.

Ethelred
Floyd442
5 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2010
I hope Karl Popper and Hannes Alfven are up in that big pond together, having a nice chat. Those two, they should have changed the world.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
I can't see Popper having a nice chat with someone about non-falsifiable non-science. Then again maybe even Alfven would have figured out by now that the Electric Universe guys are Cranks. I don't see a sign of him claiming the Sun isn't powered by fusion.

Ethelred