http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================

Tim Thompson – A Rebuttal

In 2001 Tim Thompson wrote a 9300 word ‘critique’ of certain points I
first mentioned on my website and later detailed in my book, / The
Electric Sky <http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm> ./ This critique
is filled with misinterpretations, errors of understanding and
distortions.  It also overflows with gratuitous /ad hominem /remarks.  In
some circles his piece has been touted as an ‘authoritative refutation’ of
my work.  On the contrary, close examination reveals it to be merely an
attempt to evade facts and ideas that challenge his personal belief
system.[1] <#_ftn1> Dr Marcello Truzzi, co-founder of CSICOP, coined the
term /pseudoskepticism/ to denote what is becoming an increasingly common
form of scientific fundamentalism and vigilantism. Thompson adopts the
stance of the pseudoskeptic, one of “those who */shout/* their objections
but don’t take proper note of what is going on.” [2] <#_ftn2> Since there
is not room on this single page to present all the evidence supporting
Plasma Cosmology or the Electric Sun hypothesis, I will restrict myself
here to dissecting Thompson’s arguments point by point. For a full
supportive exposition of the concepts and hypotheses I believe to be
important, see Alfvén’s /Cosmic Plasma, /Thornhill & Talbott’s /The
Electric Universe/, and my book, /The Electric Sky/.  I also suggest
http://www.thunderbolts.info <http://www.thunderbolts.info/>/ as a prime
and always topical source of information.  Now let me address Thompson’s
points in the order in which he makes them:

Missing Solar Neutrinos

(1)  Thompson says, /“…scientists have found that they can observe the
fully expected flux of neutrinos from proton-proton (p-p) fusion/.” This
is incorrect.  The fusion reaction hypothesized by the standard solar
model to be occurring inside the Sun’s core must emit a flood of
*/electron/* neutrinos.  Although the */total/* observed neutrino flux (of
all types of neutrino) may approximate the required level for electron
neutrinos, a sufficient flux of these crucial electron neutrinos can only
be inferred */if /*it is shown that they (e-neutrinos) can ‘oscillate’
into different types of neutrinos (types which were not measured).  The
announcement made by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) that “/the SNO
detector has the capability to determine whether solar neutrinos are
changing their type en route to Earth/” is false on its face. There is no
way that measurements made at only one end (here on Earth) of a
transmission channel (that stretches from the Sun’s center to Earth) can
reveal */changes/* that occur farther up the channel (say, within the Sun
itself, or near Mercury or Venus).

Consider a freight train that runs from New York to Chicago. We live in
Chicago and are only able to observe the train as it arrives in Chicago.
It pulls in with 4 freight cars, 2 tank cars, and 1 flat car. How is it
possible, no matter how sophisticated our method of observation, for us to
make any conclusions whatever about whether freight cars, tank cars, or
flat cars have been added to or subtracted from the train at, say,
Cleveland? Moreover, how is it possible to say that freight cars have
turned into tank cars or flat cars along the route somewhere? The results
of another more recent neutrino experiment, Fermilab’s MiniBooNE
experiment, can best be summarized by the lab’s own statement, “/When the
MiniBooNE collaboration opened the box and ‘unblinded’ its data less than
three weeks ago, the telltale oscillation signature was absent[3]
<#_ftn3>./” Admittedly, the oscillation in question in this experiment
involved so-called ‘sterile neutrinos’ and was not directly applicable to
the question of electron-neutrino into muon-neutrino transformation.  
None the less, it does not state that any kinds of neutrinos were seen to
‘oscillate’ into any different type.  At this writing (April 2007),
therefore, the ‘missing neutrino’ question still remains very open despite
Thompson’s statement that this problem has been completely resolved.

(2)  Thompson states, “Scott, on the other hand, would skip the bother of
verifying his results, and jump to the instantaneous conclusion that all
of known physics must be wrong and must be replaced. That would be both
illogical and unreasonable.” It is one of the ploys of pseudoskepticism to
assert offhandedly that the proposed explanation violates some law of
physics. To assert “all of known physics must be wrong” is a symptom of
panic.  This is his only answer to my statement of fact that
astrophysicists have never given close and careful examination to any
alternative energy source for the Sun since Eddington’s proclamation that
it simply had to be nuclear fusion. The electric solar model is solidly
based on plasma laboratory experiments and observed phenomena (such as
double layers and plasma modes). It is the accepted fusion model that
resorts to postulating the existence of an ‘unseen solar dynamo’ that
lurks below the Sun’s surface and conveniently does everything necessary
to support their hypothesis.  The electric phenomena embodied in the
electric Sun model have all been observed and worked with in plasma
laboratory experiments for decades.

(3)  Thompson states. “In order to reject the fundamental theory of fusion
in the stellar interior, it would be necessary, to all at once sweep away
literally everything known about hydrodynamics & magnetohydrodynamics,
thermodynamics, gravitation, nuclear physics, statistical physics, and
electromagnetism.” This is a repetition of (2) and is an illogical
assertion as well. All of the disciplines listed remain untouched by the
Electric Sun model. It is simply that their domain of applicability is
restricted. Sustained nuclear fusion using extreme heat and pressure is a
Will-O-the-Wisp (literal meaning - ‘fool’s fire’) that has been
desperately sought after for over 50 years. It has never been obtained in
any laboratory.  Its existence in the Sun’s core is nothing more than a
*proclaimed hypothesis*.  We cannot see into the Sun. We cannot observe
what is occurring below the photosphere.  The Electric Sun model does
indeed include the probability that empirically confirmed nuclear fusion
is occurring near the surface of the Sun.

(4)– (7) These points generally rehash the above. However, in (6) Thompson
states, /“…the solar neutrino problem in fact sparked an intense
examination of solar models./” (Not of any */alternatives to the accepted
/*fusion model, however.)  And then: /“...the next step is to see if the
neutrino models were valid. That was done, and *they were found to be
invalid*/.” Yes. Indeed so.

Convection in the Sun

In this section Thompson attacks my use of Juergens’ statement: “/Many
facile assertions to the contrary, it becomes increasingly obvious that
photospheric granulation is explainable in terms of convection only if we
disregard what we know about convection. Surely the cellular structure is
not to be expected./” He launches into a detailed description of the
Reynolds and Rayleigh numbers. He states: Scott and Juergens “.../made two
big mistakes …. First, he thought that convection was controlled by the
Reynolds number, which it is not; it is the Rayleigh number that does
that/.” Here Thompson creates a straw man and then dramatically demolishes
it.  Of course neither Juergens nor I ever mentioned the Rayleigh number,
which is used to distinguish between where heat *conduction* occurs and
where *convection* occurs. Conduction was never even considered to occur –
neither by mainstream astronomers nor by us.

In the hypothesized ‘convection zone,’ the question is not whether
convection or conduction occurs.  The question is: Since the Reynolds
number is so large (remember that how it is numerically evaluated is based
on many assumptions about a region we cannot observe), any convection must
be turbulent, *not laminar,* flow. But the photospheric ‘tufts’ that we do
observe are claimed to be the tops of *laminar columns* that reach from
the Sun’s radiative zone all the way up to the photosphere.  How these
stable columns can exist in the highly turbulent convection zone is what
is being questioned.  Thompson’s injection of the Rayleigh number is
simply a red herring. Dr. Eugene N. Parker, perhaps the most eminent solar
astronomer, worried in print[4] <#_ftn4> that, “/the Reynolds number//
/[in the convection zone] /is on the order of 10^12 and, perhaps worse,
the convective zone is vertically stratified.”/ With Parker on our side, I
don’t think Juergens or I have to be concerned about Thompson’s objection
to our using the Reynolds number.

Temperature Minimum below the Corona

Thompson claims I make three separate errors:

(1)  He says “/the inverse square law is valid if and only if the
radiation propogates /[sic]/ through a vacuum; in the case of energy
propogating /[sic] /through an atmosphere, it is almost never true/.”
Really? It seems to work just fine for the wood stove in my living room –
and that’s definitely in an atmosphere.

(2)  “/Scott's argument that the temperature shift at the transition
region somehow violates this rule is therefore pointless, since *it is
expected to violate that rule anyway*/.” [Emphasis added].  Perhaps
Thompson missed the following statement by an astronomer at NRAO: “/One of
the great mysteries of the Sun is why it has a solar corona//. At the
height of the photosphere// (the visible surface of the Sun), the
temperature is ~5880K. The temperature then decreases with height for
several hundred kilometers. But then *something amazing occurs*: at
greater heights, the temperature increases, gradually at first, and then
suddenly to ~3 million degrees./” [Emphasis added.] Also Dr. Peter T.
Gallagher of the Big Bear Solar Observatory said “/Understanding the
physics of coronal heating and solar wind// acceleration* remains one of
the unsolved problems of solar physics.*/[5] <#_ftn5>*/”/* Thompson should
contact them and inform them of their error in suggesting there really is
a problem.

(3)  Here Thompson states that the Sun is hotter inside than it is on its
surface (photosphere), so everything is all right. But the photosphere is
not the ‘top’ of the Sun.  This notion ignores the problem of the corona.  
It is a red herring. It uses ‘helioseismology’ to prove the Sun is hotter
inside.  The Sun’s lower corona is */millions/* of degrees hotter than the
photosphere.  This is not a simple temperature inversion layer caused by
rising hot air as observed here on Earth.

A word about helioseismology:  This ‘science’ is an exercise in /a
posteriori /‘curve fitting of observed data’.  If we see certain
oscillations and fluctuations in any set of data we can always ‘model’
them – fit a mathematical curve to the data by ‘least squares fit’ or some
other criterion.  But then to claim that this model ‘proves’ what is
occurring inside the Sun, where no observation has been made (or is
possible), is logically unsupportable.  Thompson goes on to say, “/The
problem faced by solar physicists is not that there is no explanation, but
rather that there are too *many potential explanations* to choose from!/”
That constitutes a very poor argument for asserting the unique correctness
of the standard solar model. And as we shall see below, disconfirming data
is pushed to one side in the hope that someone, someday, will be able to
explain it away. Dr. Gallagher and many of his colleagues are not as
complacent as Thompson.  Astrophysicists are all too prone to hypothesize
invisible mechanisms (they often call them ‘dynamos’) and unobservable
forces (dark energy comes to mind) whenever their gravity-only fusion
model needs propping up.  Thompson’s “many potential explanations” are
unlimited in number only because of the keenness of astrophysicists for
inventing yet more arcane, fictional, invisible entities and forces –
while steadfastly ignoring electrical explanations.

Acceleration of the Solar Wind Ions

Wal Thornhill has already referred Thompson to low-pressure gas discharge
physics as being the appropriate model to use, not simple electrostatics.
As a pseudoskeptic, Thompson refuses to address his remarks to this model
because it refutes his beliefs and he can’t find any authority to quote
that has ever considered the possibility. In the gas discharge model,
interplanetary space is an extensive plasma region termed the ‘positive
column,’ which is characterized by almost equal numbers of positive
charges (ions) and electrons. The plasma is electrically ‘quasi-neutral,’
like a current-carrying copper wire. And like a copper wire, it is a
region with a weak electric field that causes a steady /drift/ of
electrons toward the more positive ‘sink.’ (The drift speed of electrons
in a current-carrying copper wire is typically measured in cm/hr!) The
drift current focused down from the vastness of space powers the Sun. The
drift field is also responsible for the weak acceleration of positive ions
away from the Sun. The result is the quasi-neutral solar ‘wind.’ The
electric Sun model is the only one that has a consistent satisfactory
explanation for the solar wind.

The phenomenon known as the ‘plasma frequency’ is caused by the ionized
(free) electrons’ tendency to lurk and oscillate around the neighborhood
of positive ions. The fact that many electrons hover around the vicinity
of these accelerating ions is not a contradiction of the ES hypothesis.  
Only a meager fraction of these electrons are needed to power (to drift
toward) the Sun. The accelerating ions are (one of many) currents that are
part of a circuit. The electrons are also part of that circuit (driven by
circuit potentials, not a ‘central pith ball’ electrostatic potential).  
These currents will be ‘pinched’ into filaments, sheets and heterogeneous
paths. Thompson invokes Maxwell by saying, /“...according to Maxwell's
equations, a time variable magnetic field will generate an electric field,
which will accelerate a charged particle/.” True.  A time-varying magnetic
flux will generate an electric field around a closed path that encircles
the flux. But */what causes that time variation in the magnetic field?/*
The standard non-electrical response (as I understand it) would be that
the magnetic field is frozen into the plasma, and gravity, convection, or
some other mechanical force moves the plasma, thereby ‘powering’ the
variation in the magnetic field.  But, as decades of laboratory and space
research have shown, magnetic fields are /not/ frozen into plasmas.
Changing electrical currents change magnetic fields.  The pseudoskeptics
never mention these required – and measured – electrical currents.

Periodic Fluctuations in the Sun’s Output and Size

TT writes, “/There are two kinds of ‘periodic fluctuations’. One kind has
been known about for centuries, and refers to the various classes of
variable stars… The other kind is of recent discovery, and now goes by the
monicker of ‘helioseismology’, when applied to the Sun, or
‘astroseismology’ when applied to other stars/.”

The issue of helioseismology is actually a diversion. The electrical model
of stars is not concerned with what lies beneath the glowing photosphere
because the energy deposited in the photosphere does not come from within.
The photosphere does not constitute a ‘surface’ but is a plasma discharge
phenomenon. However, helioseismology may provide evidence that the
thermonuclear model is incorrect. That is the basis for highlighting
evidence that suggests the Sun is practically isodense throughout.

The cause of solar fluctuations is not understood, but that has not
stopped theorists from applying helioseismology to the standard solar
model in the belief that it will help to validate that model. The standard
solar model qualifies under Langmuir’s definition of pathological science
because it is ‘/a fantastic theory contrary to experience/.’ All physical
bodies transfer internal heat by conduction and convection—except the Sun
and other bright stars, which throughout most of their volume, we are
told, transfer heat by internal radiation.

The standard solar model qualifies twice because discordant findings, like
those of the dominant radial oscillation mode, are met by minimizing their
importance, adjusting the model/ ad hoc/, or outright denying that the
data means what it implies. We are witnessing dogmatic, rather than
scientific, skepticism in relation to the 160-minute solar oscillation.

As a pseudoskeptic, TT chooses first to minimize the importance of the
data by implying that the early papers concerned were thrown into doubt by
later research. He mischievously introduces confusion about what was being
observed. There was indeed confusion about the /implications/ because they
are potentially devastating to the standard solar model. However, in 1991,
in a chapter in /Solar Interior and Atmosphere/ by Hill, Fröhlich, Gabriel
and Kotov, titled “Solar Gravity Modes,” there is no such doubt. It points
out that the 160-minute oscillation was considered very skeptically
because it implied “/radial pulsations of a star being homogeneous in
density./” It is such a direct challenge to the validity of the
thermonuclear model that more than a decade of research was dedicated to
the issue. That research effort concluded that the total set of the
Crimean 1974-1987 observations confirmed the existence of the solar
pulsation with a period of 160.01 min, which appeared to keep constant (in
average) initial phase.

In a 1985 paper, Kotov summarizes the enigma of the 160-minute
periodicity: “/it is beyond doubt, on the basis of the solar observations
and the facts discussed here, that the nature of the 160-min oscillation,
firstly found in the Sun *and then in the solar system as a whole */and
then*/ amongst the stars/*/, does present a new challenging problem for
astrophysics./” [Emphasis added.] Only the externally powered electrical
model of stars provides any possibility of a connection between such
widely separated bodies.

TT is very selective in his presentation of evidence from the referenced
papers, and he provides no quotations from his list of ‘Sources’ to
address the issue. Those sources are therefore irrelevant and merely serve
as an appeal to authority. They are idle ‘window dressing.’

The Electric Sun Hypothesis

Thompson states, “/The best way to make sense of any new idea, is to start
off with what you *know*, and see if that knowledge, and the new idea, are
compatible/.” This implies that he already */knows/* what powers the Sun –
so anything that challenges that presumption is wrong by definition. There
are many misstatements of what the major characteristics of the electric
Sun model are – so many in fact that I would essentially have to copy here
an entire two-chapter segment of my book.  The major omission from
Thompson’s discussion is any mention of the plasma characteristics of a
spherically shaped active plasma.  And he states as fact things we do
*/not/* know. For example: “/Juergen's /[sic]/ assumed an extremely
unrealistic velocity of about 105 meters per second (about 0.1 km/sec),
when the real velocity is more like 20 km/sec/” [for electrons approaching
the Sun’s heliopause from interstellar space].  Thompson's page has a typo
here.  Juergens' actual statement (in his paper /Electric Discharge as the
Source of Solar Radiant Energy /as recorded in/ Kronos /Vol VIII No.2
Winter 1983) was, "/Let us suppose that the effective velocity of a
typical interstellar electron would be about 10^5 meters per second [not
105], corresponding to a kinetic temperature of a few hundred degrees
Kelvin./"  Note that Thompson apparently believed the erroneous number
(105), because he announces this velocity as being about 0.1 km/sec which
he then claims is too low.  The correct value of Juergens' actual estimate
is 100 km/sec which is five times Thompson's and effectively negates his
argument. At any rate, no one has made any measurements beyond the
heliopause, so one man’s estimate of this velocity is as valid as
another’s at this time.  In fact, data from the Voyager spacecraft are not
meeting conventional expectations in that region.

His discussion of the Lorentz force, *F* = q*E* + *V* x *B*,* *omits the
singularly important point that it is exactly this force that reduces the
mobility of transversely directed charges in a magnetic field and results
in (magnetic) field-aligned currents – often called Birkeland currents.  
Thus, these incoming electrons will spiral inward in roughly the same
direction as the solar magnetic field.

Thompson follows this by admitting, “... /even if the total number of
electrons seems like enough for an electric sun, getting them to the sun
is quite a chore, since they move in excess of escape velocity, and are
pushed off by the magnetic field/.”

Discussions of ‘escape velocities’ ought to embarrass him.  First of all,
electrical forces experienced by electrons are at least 10^36 times as
strong as the gravitational force.  Electric charges in an electric field
do not pay the slightest attention to gravity – the concept of ‘escape
velocity’ does not apply to charges in an electric field.  The charges
moving in the wire going to your coffee maker do not respond to gravity;
you do not have to place the coffeemaker lower than the wall outlet into
which it is connected in order for the charges to flow down into it.  
These gravitational arguments are almost identical to those raised against
Birkeland when he said electric charges (‘corpuscles’) come all the way
from the Sun to Earth, enter the earth’s vicinity via the cusps in its
magnetic field, and power the auroras.  It was claimed then too that
charges would never be able to do that – they would be somehow diverted.
Of course, we now know they do exactly that.

Prominences, Flares and CMEs

In this section, Thompson’s first sentence demonstrates his ignorance of
the processes that are involved: “/Scott shows *an image* from the
Transition Region And Coronal Explorer (TRACE) spacecraft, *of a typical
magnetic loop* over the photosphere/.” [Emphasis added.] No image of a
magnetic field has */ever/* been taken.  Magnetic fields are invisible.  
What we can (and do) see is plasma in the glow or arc mode.  The plasma in
the TRACE image is emitting light because it is carrying electric current.
So it would be more accurate to say these are */electric current loops/*
and these looping field-aligned currents are following magnetic paths.

These loop currents */must /*generate magnetic fields of their own that
link them. They may also contain a potentially explosive double layer
(DL). Either of these mechanisms (the surrounding flux or the DL) is
capable of interrupting the loop current, which will immediately release
energy stored in the local magnetic field. This release gives rise to the
ejection of matter, which is carried along – the CME.  This explanation
was offered by Hannes Alfvén in /Cosmic Plasma /in 1981.  Thompson has the
pseudoskeptics’ predilection of ignoring things he doesn’t want to admit
exist.  Gravity-only astrophysicists are trained to think of magnetic
fields as prime movers that for some unknown reason initiate movement and
act independently, causing whatever is observed.  Alfvén was adamant that
such an approach could lead only to misunderstanding of the actual
physical process that */must involve consideration of the causal electric
currents./*

Magnetic Reconnection

Thompson states that, “/The ‘reconnection’ of magnetic field lines is a
very standard topic in plasma physics/…” Actually it is not. It is
becoming a popular topic only among those physicists who have never had an
engineering course in electricity and magnetism and take delight in
inventing ‘new science’ in order to explain how energy is released from a
magnetic field.

“/Magnetic reconnection is very much a standard (observed) mechanism for
transferring energy within a variable magnetic field, or transmitting
energy between magnetic fields/.” Says Thompson.  Actually ‘magnetic
reconnection’ has */never /*been */observed/*.  What has been observed is
the release of large amounts of energy from magnetic fields in which it
was previously stored.

Sources:  Thompson lists several papers written by people such as those I
describe in the first paragraph in this section.  The number of papers
cited do not indicate correct knowledge – they indicate the degree to
which an insular group of astrophysicists have run off down the wrong road
after having refused, as undergraduates and graduate students, to take
courses that fully explain and apply Maxwell’s equations (such as the ones
I taught for thirty-nine years at a major university).

Any electrical engineer (or physics student who has studied field theory)
will easily show Thompson (and his colleagues) the error of their ways.  
All it takes to understand this argument is to recognize the clear
difference between 1) conceptual constructs that are convenient tools for
thinking about and visualizing a process, and 2) the physical process
itself.  The former (the concept) exists only in one’s mind. It does not
exist in three-dimensional space.  The latter (the process) concerns the
movement or interaction of things that really */do/* exist in our world.
Once this difference is fully grasped, it is easy to see that magnetic
field lines do not (cannot) */do/* anything in the real world – because
they do not exist in the real world.  I remember well the undergrad who
once asked me if electric fields were really red (because I always used
red colored chalk when I sketched them on the blackboard).  I hope I
convinced him that E-fields didn’t have any given color.  Similarly I wish
I could convince Thompson that magnetic field lines */do not have any
substance/*.  And they */do not move./* They are instantaneous descriptors
of (the magnitude and direction of) a vector field – and nothing more.

I have little hope of persuading Thompson of his error, so the following
example is not intended for him. It is for the benefit of anyone who
wishes to learn about the proper use of magnetic field lines.

Example:

First, consider the magnetic field produced across an air gap in, say, a
DC electric motor.  An idealized sketch is shown in figure 1(a).  Lines
are drawn flowing downward, out of the N pole of the magnet at the top, to
illustrate the direction and strength of the continuous magnetic field.
They flow downward and enter the S pole of the magnet at the bottom.
Because the field lines are shown as parallel lines, this implies the
magnetic flux density (strength) is the same at any cross-section in the
gap.  This will not be the case in practice.  Actually the field will
bulge out a bit to the right and left (and front and back), exhibiting a
lower magnetic flux density near the center of (halfway across) the gap.  
The field lines should be drawn more widely spaced there than near either
of the poles.  But this is an idealized case designed to demonstrate the
utility of magnetic field lines.

Now consider the field that would be produced by a straight conductor
positioned halfway between the N and S poles that carries a time-invariant
current */into/* the page.  The field caused by this current is
cylindrical in shape, and its strength decreases as the first power of the
distance from the conductor. Thus the farther we get (radially) away from
the center of the wire, the more widely spaced the circular lines are
drawn (the weaker the field is).  The field’s direction is given by the
right hand rule and is as shown in the diagram.  These two fields are the
components whose vector sum (at every point in the plane shown) is the
total resulting field.

Figure 1. Idealized sketch of the magnetic fields due to an air gap and a
current carrying conductor. (a) The individual component fields. (b)
Sketch of the resulting total field.

I have made a rough sketch of what this result would look like in (b).  
The dotted circle in (b) is a /separatrix/ that defines a surface, within
which magnetic flux links only the wire and does not reach to the bar
magnet poles.  The small black dot (at the nine o’clock position on the
separatrix) is a */null point/*. At such points the strength of the
overall magnetic field is zero valued.  This is the point where uninformed
‘scientists’ claim ‘magnetic reconnection’ occurs. (The situation shown in
this diagram is the basis of ‘motor action’.  Since this configuration
exists in just about every operating AC and DC motor in the world, one
wonders why CME-like flashes don’t erupt more often in factories that use
such motors.)

Let us suppose the conductor is free to move (slide in the horizontal
plane) either to the right or to the left.  Will it tend to move?  If so,
which way will it go?  The correct answer is given by the Lorentz
equation, *F* = q*E* + *V* x *B.  *Because there is no important electric
field in* *our example, the first term on the right is zero.  The velocity
vector *V *is the velocity of any positive charge flowing in the conductor
and is directed into the page (away from the reader).  The magnetic field
*B* due to the bar magnets is pointing downward. So ‘crossing *V* into
*B*’ produces a force vector *F* that is directed toward the left.  The
conductor will experience a force pushing it toward the left.  That’s what
happens. Please note carefully that magnetic field lines have not (and do
not) enter into the mechanism or its description in any way.

But sometimes in the classroom we use the ‘rubber-band’ analogy:  look at
figure 1(b) and think of the ‘magnetic lines’ you see drawn there as if
they were rubber bands. The ones to the right of the conductor seem
‘stretched’ more than the lines to the left. The stretched lines (rubber
bands) seem to ‘push’ the conductor to the left.

Thompson would say, “See, this shows that magnetic field lines */do push
on things and move things around!"  – NOT! /* The length of the lines is
irrelevant.  As with contour lines on a topographical map, the lines may
‘stretch’ farther around one side of a mountain (because there’s a meadow
on that side) than on the other, but that doesn’t mean the ‘stretched’
lines “push” on the meadow.

What we ought to conclude from this example are the following points:

§ Magnetic field lines are */only /*convenient concepts – nothing more.  
They are */not /*loci or contours of constant magnetic flux density (field
strength). They just indicate the field’s direction.  In regions where
they are close together the field is stronger than where they are widely
separated.

§ Therefore, sketching magnetic field lines can help us visualize the
shape and strength of magnetic fields.

§ They can help us to sketch the net result (vector sum) if and when two
or more fields interact (are superimposed on each other).

§ We can only draw magnetic field lines (in cases not involving permanent
ferromagnetic magnets) by considering the electric currents that create
those fields.

§ Magnetic lines of force do not actually exist in three-dimensional space
anymore than lines of latitude or longitude do.

§ If a field moves from one instant to another, we cannot use ‘streaming
video’ to watch a given line move and change shape.  This is because we
must re-draw a complete set of lines at each instant. It isn’t the same
line that has moved, it is the field that has changed. The two sets of
lines describe the field at those two different times.

§ Magnetic lines of force do not move anymore than lines of longitude do.
A determined unwillingness to recognize this fact has led to the idea that
lines move toward each other, touch, merge, and then release energy.  I
have said many times that this last notion, if applied to circles of
longitude that come together and ‘merge’ at Earth’s poles, could be
proposed as causing gravitational energy releases at those locations.

§ There is no such process as ‘magnetic merging’ or ‘reconnection’ of
magnetic field lines in the real world any more than the ‘rubber band
analogy' is a real process.

Where do we stand?

We stand at a time in scientific history that will be embarrassing to look
back on from the vantage point of the next century.  An entire subgroup of
science consisting of a majority of astrophysicists and cosmologists is
now – and has been – smugly ignoring the fruits of 150 or so years of
electrical science.  This subgroup feels perfectly confident in
postulating the existence of processes and entities that cannot be
verified experimentally in earthbound labs.  “But that doesn’t mean those
processes can’t happen in space,” they say.  When there are perfectly
valid electrical explanations for certain phenomena, it is irresponsible
to ignore those explanations and invent ‘new science’ to avoid using them.
People will ask, years from now, “How could they have ignored electricity
in space when it was staring them in the face?”

Classic astronomy (and its offshoots: helioseismology, astrophysics,
cosmology, etc.) have never made any real predictions that turned out to
be true – although they are past-masters at inventing ‘dynamos’ and
invisible entities to explain things */retroactively/*. After-the-fact
explanations are easy, especially if you can get away with saying “The
hidden ‘dynamo’ did it.” Before they were forced into it, classical
astronomers were wrong about how the auroras are powered, about the
temperature of Venus, about the rocky nature of comets, about x-rays
coming from comets and other objects, about the existence of natural radio
emissions from the planets. And I claim they are wrong about many things
they are now saying about the Sun.

Of course the Electric Sun model is speculative.  But these speculations
are reasonable extrapolations of the solid, experimentally verified
properties of plasma.  We are not positive that everything included in the
ES hypothesis is 100% correct.  We do not claim omnipotence or perfection
for our early models.

The ‘standard’ astrophysical models are far */more/* speculative. They are
built up of speculation cantilevered onto speculation that is ever farther
removed from any empirical basis. And a tremendous amount of doubt is
piling up about them. They do not explain (without /ad hoc/ and /a
posteriori/ adjustments) many of the observations that are being made – as
the Electric Sun model does.  (The fusion model doesn’t even explain why
the solar corona */exists/* in the first place, let alone its three
million Kelvin temperature inversion.)  Each time new data comes in from
space probes, astronomers typically announce their */surprise/* and rush
‘back to the drawing board’.  They then busy themselves modifying (adding
complexity to) their models – reminiscent of Ptolemaic epicycles – and
emerge confidently claiming they knew this all along. In the one case
where they deigned to make reference to anything electrical (the release
of magnetic energy) they got it wrong and had to ‘discover’ new properties
of magnetic fields that do not exist.

Call it what you will – Plasma Cosmology, the Electric Universe or the
Electric Sky – the thrust of what was started by Kristian Birkeland (when
he discovered the true electrical nature of the auroras), Hannes Alfvén,
and Irving Langmuir (each of whom were awarded Nobel Prizes for their
work) continues. And it will take more than the confrontational,
parochial, pompous smoke screens of pseudoskeptics such as Tim Thompson to
stop it.

Donald E. Scott – Ph.D. (Electrical Engineering)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] <#_ftnref1> ‘Many of our beliefs are not based on evidence that we
have examined’ and ‘we are quite casual about evaluating evidence that
goes against beliefs we hold strongly.’ Prof. Lewis Wolpert/, Six
Impossible Things Before Breakfast/ (Faber & Faber 2006).

[2] <#_ftnref2> Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate and professor of
experimental physics at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge,
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Josephson_disbelief.pdf. Also
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pseudoskepticism

[3] <#_ftnref3> http://www.physorg.com/news95517501.html

[4] <#_ftnref4> “The Physics of the Sun and the Gateway to the Stars,”
Eugene N. Parker, /Physics Today,/ June 2000, p. 26-31.

[5] <#_ftnref5> Seminar on Observations and Modeling of the Corona and
Solar Wind – Big Bear Solar Observatory