How the Sun Really Works: Exploring Plasma Cosmology

[Nereid]

WARNING! Nereid attempt at levity follows!

In a light-hearted vein, I'm wondering whether there are devotees of the strong force, or the weak force.

I mean, proponents of 'EU theory' claim, falsely, that astrophysicists regard gravity as the only force worth studying, and counter-claim that 'electricity'* is really the only one (odd though that while 99.{insert more 9's here, to your taste}% of the universe is plasma, 100% is mass-energy, so gravity wins).

Surely there must be folk who believe that a plague should visit both houses; that the strong force is {insert your favourite number here} orders of magnitude stronger than electromagnetism, and that only the inconsequential neutrinos can escape the grip of the strong force (see, true believers of this cult can make just as many false claims as 'EU theorists'!)? There must be a Nobel Laureate whose work can be picked over to find juicy morsels that support these obvious truths!

And let's not neglect the weak force ... it may be weak in name, but its effects are profound, its wingéd messengers can leap tall buildings in a single bound! not only can they pass through solid walls, but even a light-year of solid lead is but tissue paper to them! Its flock vastly outnumber those of the baryons, and when the truth about dark matter (DM) is finally discovered (any day now, promise), the awesome reality of the dominance of the universe by the weak force will become clear - DM is neutralinos, the supreme embodiment of the weak force! {feel free to continue adding exclamation marks here}.

* Of course, they don't mean that; they really mean electromagnetism.

 

[ZapperZ]

And let's not neglect the weak force ... it may be weak in name, but its effects are profound, its wingéd messengers can leap tall buildings in a single bound! not only can they pass through solid walls, but even a light-year of solid lead is but tissue paper to them! Its flock vastly outnumber those of the baryons, and when the truth about dark matter (DM) is finally discovered (any day now, promise), the awesome reality of the dominance of the universe by the weak force will become clear - DM is neutralinos, the supreme embodiment of the weak force! {feel free to continue adding exclamation marks here}.

You left out one important thing, Nereid. Weak force could be responsible for CP violating events, and thus, the reason why we have matter-antimatter asymmetry in our universe today. So Weak Force rules! :)

Zz.

 

[Nereid]

Alfvén's Plasma Universe, and Birkeland

iantresman,

Alfvén was but 10 when Birkeland died. Both men played important roles in the several centuries' long history of understanding the Earth's magnetosphere, to use the modern term. In particular, Alfvén's contributions included extending some of Birkeland's work and ideas, introducing new ideas, and showing that some of Birkeland's work and ideas are inconsistent with good observational results (see http://www.phy6.org/Education/bh1-1.html" for an interesting, non-technical, summary*).

Given that, I'm curious to know why your website gives such prominence to Birkeland, and, in particular, seems to present, quite uncritically, much of Birkeland's work on space plasmas that Alfvén showed was inconsistent with both theory (which Alfvén developed) and remote observation (and, later, in situ observation), not to mention Alfvén's ideas of the Plasma Universe (especially where Alfvén developed his own models and ideas that are quite incompatible with Birkeland's, such as the rings of Saturn).

* From your extensive knowledge of Alfvén's work, do you feel there's anything significantly mis-stated, or omitted?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Thank you for you consideration. How about academic books, such as those published by University Presses, and academic publishers, eg. Spinger.

Academic textbooks are fine. The goal is to ensure that only academically sound sources are used. As long as we meet this requirement we should be fine.

 

[iantresman]

One difficulty any such efforts will face is the lack of uniformity of usage of the more common terms, not within the respective scientific communities, but among those who are PF members, and guests, both present and future.

For example, the term 'Electric Universe': it can have a meaning as bland as something like 'the almost universal use of electricity in countries with developed economies', or a synonym for 'Plasma Universe' (per your website), or 'the Sun and stars were formed by z-pinches and powered by giant interstellar Birkeland currents', and so on.

Do I really have "Electric Universe" as a synonym for "Plasma Universe" on my Web site? I have tried very hard not to imply this, as I am aware of differences. Can you give me a link to the page? And likewise, "the Sun and stars were formed by z-pinches" is language I would hopefully not use on the site, unless one of my contributers has added this.

You are quite correct that formal terminology is a problem. If I mention, for example, the heliospheric current sheet, usually there is no problem. But if I mention it in the same sentence as the Electric Universe, it becomes crackpottery.

Edit by Ivan: Link deleted. One again, please do not link anything but academic resources.

 

[Astronuc]

Do I really have "Electric Universe" as a synonym for "Plasma Universe" on my Web site? I have tried very hard not to imply this, as I am aware of differences. Can you give me a link to the page? And likewise, "the Sun and stars were formed by z-pinches" is language I would hopefully not use on the site, unless one of my contributers has added this.

You are quite correct that formal terminology is a problem. If I mention, for example, the heliospheric current sheet, usually there is no problem. But if I mention it in the same sentence as the Electric Universe, it becomes crackpottery.

Ian, the problem is not your site, but rather all the other sites and folks out there on the internet. One problem we have at PF is trying to differentiate by what each new guest means by EU/PU/PC. So we need to pin down each term and determine any overlaps.

We see problems with all three, as we understand them, and particular EU, which is clearly contradicted by observations.

 

[iantresman]

And even with an apparently technical term we can find problems; look at 'Birkeland currents', for example: it has a standard, technical meaning when used by those who do research into the physics of the Earth's magnetosphere ... while that term may be quite unknown to almost all other physicists, it is also quite straight-forward to define in an unambiguous way.

I agree with you that Birkeland currents more commonly refer to auroral field-aligned currnets, but perhaps this is because it is a more common area of research. As Hannes Alfvén wrote (my emphasis):

".. it was [Alex] Dessler who discovered the electric currents that Birkeland had predicted. Dessler called them "Birkeland currents," a term that is now generally accepted and sometimes generalized to mean all currents parallel to the magnetic fields. I think that it is such a great achievement by Dessler to have interpreted the magnetospheric data in what we now know is the correct way that the currents should be called Birkeland-Dessler currents." Alfven, Hannes, "http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ITPS...14..779A"", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 779-793. (p.787)​

Michael Gedalin and William Peter write about:

"galactic-sized Birkeland current filaments" -- Gedalin, M.; Peter, W., "http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ITPS...20..740G"" (1982) IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., Vol. 20, No. 6, p. 740-744​

Anthony L. Peratt wites :

"that pinched Birkeland currents also occur in cometary magntospheres" -- Peratt, Anthony L., "Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas" (1996) Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 242, Issue 1-2, pp. 93-163
​

However, the same term can be found on many 'Electric Universe' or 'Plasma Universe' websites, where it clearly has a different meaning, or range of meanings.

I am reminded of the use of the word "gas" (as in hot ball of gas), where in solar physics it means "plasma", a word with quite a specific meaning. See for example, Leon Golub, Jay M. Pasachoff, "Nearest Star: The Surprising Science of Our Sun" (2001), Harvard University Press. We all know what is meant, even the sun does not contain gas.

Further, and this goes to another of Astronuc's points, it is only seldom defined (on those websites) and rarely, if ever, do any such definitions include unambiguous links to the underlying physics (such as an equation).

And likewise, this very forum does not require links to the underlying physics for every reply that is posted.

 

[iantresman]

You have to admit that for most professionals in any particular field of study, studying something predominantly from the "web" isn't the best way of mastering it. Unless one actually sits down and work through the details, even simply reading published papers only gives you a superficial knowledge of the subject. And I think, this is the case. I noticed that Nereid went into great lengths to not only point out issues surrounding the references given, but also the problems with the physics content of some of them. And unless I missed it (which is entirely possible), most of your responses to her assertion have been to characterize the papers and who published it and where it was published, etc., i.e. trying to shore up the "prestige" of the paper rather than the validity of the content. This is why I thought that it was strange that you'd want to promote something that you didn't know very well in the first place.

I'm in a no-win no-win situation. I can disagree with Nereid, but my status is unknown, and "my word" effectively worthless. Or I can let people judge for themselves by providing a peer reviewed citation which necessarily includes the publishing details. Since it has been hammered home that the quality of sources is important, this seems important to include.

While it may seem that I am trying to shore up the "prestige" of the paper rather than the validity of the content, I note that no-one has provided any peer-reviewed criticisms of the content in question.

 

[iantresman]

From my perspective, the reason why this subject is here was because the early proponent of "Plasma Universe" in this forum used dubious sources, and continues to use such sources (webpages, YouTube video) even after being told not to. Such stubbornness relegated the discussion (not the subject matter - which is entirely a different issue) to this forum.

I think that is indeed part of it, but also perhaps the perception that the "Plasma Universe" model is bogus, and hasn't been investigated via peer review.

 

[iantresman]

Given that, I'm curious to know why your website gives such prominence to Birkeland, and, in particular, seems to present, quite uncritically, much of Birkeland's work on space plasmas that Alfvén showed was inconsistent with both theory (which Alfvén developed) and remote observation (and, later, in situ observation), not to mention Alfvén's ideas of the Plasma Universe (especially where Alfvén developed his own models and ideas that are quite incompatible with Birkeland's, such as the rings of Saturn).

Same reason as before. It's difficult to write about a subject with giving prominence to it. In writing about Birkeland's work, I'm most interested in adding information about it, again, because a lot of this information, or collection of references, is not generally available elsewhere.

If I add to my site an article on "ring formation", I am sure I will add citations to both Birkeland and Alfvén. On my website page on Plasma Cosmology I recently added some peer-reviewed criticism I'd found on the subject, so I'm not adverse to excluding criticism.

 

[Astronuc]

And likewise, this very forum does not require links to the underlying physics for every reply that is posted.

Here at PF, peer-to-peer (pro to pro) discussions don't need an outside source. If we work with a student or someone outside the field in question, most likely there is an outside reference, e.g. hyperphysics website.

The topic of EU/PU/PC has been introduced from outside PF, and we have to struggle to understand it because different people mix terminology.

I think that is indeed part of it, but also perhaps the perception that the "Plasma Universe" model is bogus, and hasn't been investigated via peer review.

Or it has been peer reviewed and dismissed already, without substantial documentation.

If the peers in astrophysics have dismissed, would one expect PF to accept it?

Right away EU is discredited if it claims interstellar electric current power the sun. There is no evidence of substantial interstellar (filamentary) currents of the magnitude necessary. If someone mentions EU with PU/PC then it discredits PU/PC, which may be problematic themselves.

Would one accept that interstellar medium (ISM) is mostly neutral atoms (rather than ions and free electrons) at a temperature of about 3.7 K, which is too cold to sustain a substantial plasma and free electrons? We see radiofrequency, but there is no significant UV or visible light that one would expect to find from recombination if there were huge currents of free electrons flowing through ISM.

What Birkeland did in the lab does not necessarily apply directly to space. The EM phenomena are similar but not the same.

We do fusion on the Earth in experiments and thermonuclear weapons, but we use DD or DT, and perhaps a few others. This is not the same process in the sun, which is based on the pp-chain and CNO cycle, and at much higher particle densities, which we could never achieve in the lab. They are both fusion processes, but under very different conditions.

 

[iantresman]

Ian, the problem is not your site, but rather all the other sites and folks out there on the internet. One problem we have at PF is trying to differentiate by what each new guest means by EU/PU/PC. So we need to pin down each term and determine any overlaps.

Thanks for the clarification, I wasn't sure.

We see problems with all three, as we understand them, and particular EU, which is clearly contradicted by observations.

Sounds like a good example of where being more specific with the claims and observation would be scientifically useful. I am aware that the Electric Universe makes lots of claims, some of which are standard astrophysics.

 

[ZapperZ]

While it may seem that I am trying to shore up the "prestige" of the paper rather than the validity of the content, I note that no-one has provided any peer-reviewed criticisms of the content in question.

If I add to my site an article on "ring formation", I am sure I will add citations to both Birkeland and Alfvén. On my website page on Plasma_cosmology I recently added some peer-reviewed criticism I'd found on the subject, so I'm not adverse to excluding criticism.

Aren't these self-contradictory?

Besides, I thought that is what Nereid has been doing all along, questioning the validity of several of your points based on a number of sources that has been provided. Furthermore, there is a main point that has been said by both Astronuc and Nereid - that just because there is subject on plasma physics within astrophysics and cosmology, doesn't mean that those papers automatically support your "plasma cosmology" scenario. That is one issue that you should pay attention to, because that was also the impression I got from the very beginning of this. Somehow, just the word "plasma" appearing in a paper on astrophysics seems to be used as valid references to support this thing. This is bogus.

Zz.

 

[Nereid]

Do I really have "Electric Universe" as a synonym for "Plasma Universe" on my Web site? I have tried very hard not to imply this, as I am aware of differences. Can you give me a link to the page? And likewise, "the Sun and stars were formed by z-pinches" is language I would hopefully not use on the site, unless one of my contributers has added this.

You are quite correct that formal terminology is a problem. If I mention, for example, the heliospheric current sheet, usually there is no problem. But if I mention it in the same sentence as the Electric Universe, it becomes crackpottery.

As Astronuc said, it's not about your website, but about the topic of this thread - what should PF do about posts referencing one or other of these terms.

I think we're starting to spin our wheels on this one; at least I thought my suggestion was clear, and I thought you'd agreed with it - no special rules*.

The post of mine you are quoting was merely me tidying up some loose ends, elaborating on why no classification scheme (other than that based on published papers, etc) would work. Or, saying the same thing another way, it doesn't matter how you - or anyone else for that matter - chooses to slice & dice definitions of PU, PC, EU, ... the mere existence of a wide range of meanings that guests and members may bring to PF pretty much dooms any such classification scheme to ineffectiveness.

* Of course, these are not decisions for you or I to make ...

 

[Nereid]

[snip]

While it may seem that I am trying to shore up the "prestige" of the paper rather than the validity of the content, I note that no-one has provided any peer-reviewed criticisms of the content in question.

And nor should you expect to find any such here, in this S&D thread!

At least, that's how I understood the scope of this thread - it's an open discussion on what to do about material that PF members may post, concerning 'Electric Universe' (etc).

Part of the confusion, perhaps, is that this discussion has moved on from the OP, and the first few posts in the thread were a little wobbly.

As I think was said, several times, by several PF Mentors, earlier in this thread, the time for a discussion of the content of any 'EU/PU/PC/Birkeland currents/etc' papers will come ... once the scope is clarified.

 

[Nereid]

Same reason as before. It's difficult to write about a subject with giving prominence to it. In writing about Birkeland's work, I'm most interested in adding information about it, again, because a lot of this information, or collection of references, is not generally available elsewhere.

If I add to my site an article on "ring formation", I am sure I will add citations to both Birkeland and Alfvén. On my website page on Plasma Cosmology I recently added some peer-reviewed criticism I'd found on the subject, so I'm not adverse to excluding criticism.

Thanks for the clarification.

I am not trying to tell you how to run your website, nor suggesting that there should be any relationship between PF and it.

I acknowledge that my question is off-topic; I was (and still am, to some extent) merely curious about what I saw as apparent inconsistencies.

With your clarification, I see that your site's objectives are only partially related to contemporary science; you are as much interested (it seems) in the history of one small part of science as its actual content.

 

[Nereid]

One other thing I think should be clarified ... if any PF member wishes to ask questions about something 'EU-like' (or any other term), or wishes to propose, for discussion, some 'EU theory', to what extent is it permissible to include links to website's like iantresman's, or the holoscience one Astronuc mentioned?

I'm curious about this because a) it seems some PF members who posted to this thread got themselves into hot water by doing something like this, and b) https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374" may not be 100% clear (for example, when does such a link constitute 'advertising', in these days of cynical linklist building, to boost one's Google rank, for example?).

FWIW, given the virtually unmitigated attacks on science (and scientists) that some of the sites which PF members may consider linking to (many of such sites prominently feature terms like Electric Universe, Plasma Universe, Birkeland currents, etc), and the amount of venom, vitriol, bombast, etc that they are drenched in, my own, personal view is that PF members should be extremely careful posting such links. And when in doubt, as the guidelines state, they should PM a mentor and ask for advice first. But, to repeat, that's just my personal view.

 

[iantresman]

Or it has been peer reviewed and dismissed already, without substantial documentation.

If the peers in astrophysics have dismissed, would one expect PF to accept it?

I would expect something published in peer reviewed journals.

Would one accept that interstellar medium (ISM) is mostly neutral atoms (rather than ions and free electrons) at a temperature of about 3.7 K

Some sources suggest that interstellar medium includes ionized interstellar gas (ie. plasma) at temperatures up to 5 x 10⁵K (ref), whose magnetic fields are generated by electric currents (ref), and that it may form its own current sheet (ref), and that even the molecular clouds may show electric currents (ref).

 

[iantresman]

Aren't these self-contradictory?

Criticism is not necessarily a refutation. Recall that Chapman criticised Birkeland's model of the aurora for 50 years before in situ satellite observations decided the matter.

Besides, I thought that is what Nereid has been doing all along, questioning the validity of several of your points based on a number of sources that has been provided. Furthermore, there is a main point that has been said by both Astronuc and Nereid - that just because there is subject on plasma physics within astrophysics and cosmology, doesn't mean that those papers automatically support your "plasma cosmology" scenario. That is one issue that you should pay attention to, because that was also the impression I got from the very beginning of this. Somehow, just the word "plasma" appearing in a paper on astrophysics seems to be used as valid references to support this thing. This is bogus.

Agreed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One other thing I think should be clarified ... if any PF member wishes to ask questions about something 'EU-like' (or any other term), or wishes to propose, for discussion, some 'EU theory', to what extent is it permissible to include links to website's like iantresman's, or the holoscience one Astronuc mentioned?

The basic rule of thumb is that blogs and other non-professional websites are not persmissible. If there is no blogging and if no unpublished papers are linked, then that particular site may be acceptable. From what I've seen, very few sites would meet this standard. Obviously something like the IPCC or NOAA would be acceptable [as random examples].

If a person has a question specific to information found at one of these sites, then in most cases the question can be posed without the need for a link. In the case that this is not possible, I would suggest running the link past the moderator and explain the problem.

 

[iantresman]

One other thing I think should be clarified ... if any PF member wishes to ask questions about something 'EU-like' (or any other term), or wishes to propose, for discussion, some 'EU theory', to what extent is it permissible to include links to website's like iantresman's, or the holoscience one Astronuc mentioned?

I'm curious about this because a) it seems some PF members who posted to this thread got themselves into hot water by doing something like this, and b) https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374" may not be 100% clear (for example, when does such a link constitute 'advertising', in these days of cynical linklist building, to boost one's Google rank, for example?).

FWIW, given the virtually unmitigated attacks on science (and scientists) that some of the sites which PF members may consider linking to (many of such sites prominently feature terms like Electric Universe, Plasma Universe, Birkeland currents, etc), and the amount of venom, vitriol, bombast, etc that they are drenched in, my own, personal view is that PF members should be extremely careful posting such links. And when in doubt, as the guidelines state, they should PM a mentor and ask for advice first. But, to repeat, that's just my personal view.

Forgive me for not replying to each of you previous posts, I think they were more summing up. I generally agree with this post.

My personal view, is that there should not be a blanket ban on YouTube and Web sites, as a link may depend very much on context and presentation. Likewise, I would not like to see a blanket ban just because a link mentions "plasma universe" or whatever.

After all, I'm pretty sure that I've seen NASA videos on YouTube which may be difficult to find the original source. And one of the links in this thread to a YouTube video was to a documentary that included contributions by Fred Hoyle who I think has a fair reputation.

But as you say, PM a mentor first.

 

[iantresman]

The basic rule of thumb is that blogs and other non-professional websites are not permissible.

Do you think that where I have used links to my own site, that I have done so responsibly and can continue to do so, or should I still PM someone each time I wish to do so.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

By professional web site, do you mean sites run by professional scientists or organisations?

I mean sites run by professional scientific organizations. Also, some private but scientifically rigorous sites may be acceptable, but this would have to be taken on a case by case basis. Note that I have deleted the link to your site twice now. You have already admitted that you're not an expert, so your site is exactly the sort of thing that is not allowed here.

Let's be clear: Continued linking and references to your site are ban worthy violations. Not only does it violate the reference standard, but in this case it also qualifies as advertising.

 

[iantresman]

I mean sites run by professional scientific organizations. Also, some private but scientifically rigorous sites may be acceptable, but this would have to be taken on a case by case basis. Note that I have deleted the link to your site twice now. You have already admitted that you're not an expert, so your site is exactly the sort of thing that is not allowed here.

Let's be clear: Continued linking and references to your site are ban worthy violations. Not only does it violate the reference standard, but in this case it also qualifies as advertising.

I asked a fair question for clarification, so I think your reply is somewhat heavy-handed (no disrespect intended).

But thanks you for the first explicit answer to my question on this matter, whereas other PF Mentors have said that "the problem is not your site", you can see why perhaps I asked the question.

And I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you have removed one of my previous links to my site.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Fair enough.

 

[iantresman]

I mean sites run by professional scientific organizations. Also, some private but scientifically rigorous sites may be acceptable, but this would have to be taken on a case by case basis.

I assume that this would rule out linking to Wikipedia (as per post #2 here) and (post #1 here).

And also a link to a mentor's personal website (post #4) who describes himself as "an intermediate-level amateur astrophotographer"?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Wiki is not a credible scientific reference. However, it is allowed within a context that is already well understood. Next, Russ has a long an proven track record. And we do allow established and respected members to link to personal sites that are appropriate. However, they may never be used to argue for a theory.

I get the feeling that you intend to nitpick the rules in order to allow sloppy references. That won't get you far.

 

[Astronuc]

Mr. Tresman, I should have indicated in my statement "the problem is not your site, per se", however since I made that statement, I did review some of its content, and I find it troubling. For now, I regret that I have to say that it does not meet PF's standards for scientific rigor and credibility.

Furthermore, you are not making a good case for your site or PU/PC. Please don't take offense, but based on the following I have to wonder if you just do not understand what you are reading, or just don't care for the details.

I would expect something published in peer reviewed journals.

Some sources suggest that interstellar medium includes ionized interstellar gas (ie. plasma) at temperatures up to 5 x 10⁵K (ref), whose magnetic fields are generated by electric currents (ref), and that it may form its own current sheet (ref), and that even the molecular clouds may show electric currents (ref).

With respect to 5 x 10⁵K, I went to the first ref, The Interstellar Medium By James Lequeux, which I expect to be a reliable source. HOWEVER, the 5 x 10⁵K is mentioned in conjunction with hot gases. From the text (starts on previous page) surrounding the table of the first ref [Lequeux], "Most of this matter is confined in the disk, but some exists in the halo which contains, in particular, an important fraction of the hot gas. . . . For the hot and warm atomic phases, the pressure P is such that P/k = nT ~ 5-20 x 10³K cm^-3. Conversely, the pressure is considerably higher inside ionized nebulae (H II regions) and molecular clouds." The implication is that hot gases are limited to very specific areas, within a galaxy.

But the solar system is not inside a highly ionized nebulae, or a molecular cloud, and certainly not near the halo region.

So now we come to Pluto. We're not exactly sure what the surface temperature is on Pluto but most scientists agree the number must be somewhere near -378 to -396 F (-228 to -238 C, 35 to 45 K). Some theories suggest that the atmosphere of Pluto must distribute the surface heat around such that all areas are the same temperature. Other theories would allow darker regions that did not have any nitrogen or methane frost to be warmer than the surrounding regions. The thermometer shows the range of temperatures estimated for Pluto and you can see that it is indeed a very cold place. So cold that water ice would act like rock and most gases have condensed out on the surface.

from Lowell Observatory - http://www.lowell.edu/users/buie/pluto/plutotemp.html

It's pretty darn cold out at the edge of the solar system, and in fact, out of the sunlight, the moon's surface gets pretty darn cold.

Looking up at the sky at night, I don't see a lot of stars with fuzzy clouds. The closest nebula is apparently the Helix Nebula, NGC 7293, at ~450 ly!
http://www.seds.org/messier/xtra/ngc/n7293.html
http://www.bautforum.com/518284-post38.html

There appears to be a residual (reflection) nebula around Pleiades at 425 ly ( http://www.naic.edu/~gibson/pleiades/ ) and seds.org ( http://seds.org/MESSIER/m/m045.html ) puts Pleiades at 440 ly.

The bottom line is that nebulae are far away from us. As far as I can tell, other than the stars near us, there are no hot gases in our vicinity.

So any theory that mentions interstellar electric currents into the sun lacks credibility.

Removing references to EU is a start, but I suspect there are significant problems with PU/PC theories as well.

 

[iantresman]

You have already admitted that you're not an expert, so your site is exactly the sort of thing that is not allowed here.

(a) Can you just remind me in which post I suggested this, and how I assess my degree of expertise? (b) Would it be fair to say that some scientific journal editors are not experts in all the fields they include articles on?

 

[iantresman]

Mr. Tresman, I should have indicated in my statement "the problem is not your site, per se", however since I made that statement, I did review some of its content, and I find it troubling. For now, I regret that I have to say that it does not meet PF's standards for scientific rigor and credibility.

I would appreciate a couple of examples that highlight why you consider this. I'm not being argumentative, but constructive criticism is always useful.

 

[Astronuc]

(b) Would it be fair to say that some scientific journal editors are not experts in all the fields they include articles on?

Certainly. There is usually an editorial board, and even then members of that board may pass along a paper to others who have the key expertise on a particular topic. I've reviewed papers in my field precisely on that basis.

I would appreciate a couple of examples that highlight why you consider this. I'm not being argumentative, but constructive criticism is always useful.

I will provide an example.

 

[iantresman]

Furthermore, you are not making a good case for your site or PU/PC. Please don't take offense, but based on the following I have to wonder if you just do not understand what you are reading, or just don't care for the details.
With respect to 5 x 10⁵K, I went to the first ref, The Interstellar Medium By James Lequeux, which I expect to be a reliable source.

Are you saying it's not a reliable source because it is not peer reviewed? I thought academic books were adequate, and the one cited is published by Springer, relatively recently in 2005, and its editor Dr ames Lequeux has been Editor–in–Chief of Astronomy and Astrophysics.(http://unjobs.org/authors/james-lequeux)

HOWEVER, the 5 x 10⁵K is mentioned in conjunction with hot gases. From the text (starts on previous page) surrounding the table of the first ref [Lequeux], "Most of this matter is confined in the disk, but some exists in the halo which contains, in particular, an important fraction of the hot gas. . . . For the hot and warm atomic phases, the pressure P is such that P/k = nT ~ 5-20 x 10³K cm^-3. Conversely, the pressure is considerably higher inside ionized nebulae (H II regions) and molecular clouds." The implication is that hot gases are limited to very specific areas, within a galaxy.

Sorry, I got the impression from your original statement that all the interstellar medium was neutral atoms at 3.7 K, and I was showing that there are regions that aren't.

I also note from the page previous to the table that is says that "The medium between the stars [..] is made of dust and gas that are generally considered to be well mixed [..] in reality the components are partly mixed" (ref) To me that reads as a mix of ionized gases and neutrals, ie. a partially ionized plasma.

 

[Nereid]

Mr. Tresman, I should have indicated in my statement "the problem is not your site, per se", however since I made that statement, I did review some of its content, and I find it troubling. For now, I regret that I have to say that it does not meet PF's standards for scientific rigor and credibility.

I would appreciate a couple of examples that highlight why you consider this. I'm not being argumentative, but constructive criticism is always useful.

I am not Astronuc, and can't speak for him; nor am I a PF Mentor, so what follows is a purely personal opinion ...

Earlier in this thread I made some comments on your website, and you were kind enough to reply. From those replies, I concluded that the purpose and scope of your website is quite specific, and focuses almost exclusively on a set of Alfvén's ideas (which, of course, include rigorously developed plasma physics theory, papers on the match between theory and observations, and speculations that explicitly go beyond both).

May one conclude that the criteria you use for selecting material to include to present explicitly and expressly lead to the exclusion of material - whether papers published in relevant peer-reviewed publications or not - that:

+ identifies and characterises internal inconsistencies in Alfvén's 'Plasma Universe' ideas

+ identifies and characterises inconsistencies between Alfvén's 'Plasma Universe' ideas and physics theories which have overlapping domains of applicability

+ identifies and characterises inconsistencies between Alfvén's 'Plasma Universe' ideas and good, relevant observational results?

An example of the last might (and I stress might) be the blackbody SED, dipole, and angular power spectrum of the CMB*.

In any case, per a post or two of mine (and of yours), above, given that the express intent of your website is partly historical, you do not include any material on the many ways we now know Birkeland's published works are inconsistent with both Alfvén's own 'Plasma Universe' ideas (especially in some of the developments of plasma physics) and in situ magnetospheric and IPM observational data.

As we discussed, this difference of approach and purpose, between your website and PF, is nothing more than that - a difference of approach and purpose.

However, this difference leads - inevitably, I think - to Astronuc's conclusion.

*For avoidance of doubt, I do not know if Alfvén's 'Plasma Universe' ideas can be - or already have been - developed to the point where all of these are accounted for, to within the relevant error bars; nor do I know whether the CMB is within the domain of applicability of Alfvén's 'Plasma Universe' ideas.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My apologies regarding Plasmasphere. I reversed the penalty but the ban was not lifted. I just realized what happened and have corrected the situation.

 

[iantresman]

As we discussed, this difference of approach and purpose, between your website and PF, is nothing more than that - a difference of approach and purpose.

I would argue that the approach is irrelevant, a citation stands by itself. As an example, Ivan Seeking has noted that "Wiki is not a credible scientific reference. However, it is allowed within a context that is already well understood"(post). Two examples:

1. So if there is a general discussion on, for example, "double layers", and the context is acceptable, then the Wiki article on "double layers" may be an adequate reference, as I hope it is in this example just given.
   
   As it turns out, I contributed a lot of information to the Wiki article, and a very similar article appears on my own Web site. But you are suggesting that same article on my site is inadmissible because of my approach, whereas it is acceptable on the Wiki site.
   .
2. Let's suppose we're discussing chemical separation in space. One mechanism that I am aware is "Marklund convection", a type of plasma convection. Again if the context is right, then a link to a Wiki article on the subject could be in order. Except that there isn't one.
   
   I could link to a peer reviewed article on the subject, such as Marklund's original paper in Nature (ref), but unless you subscribe, many on the forum will not be able to get access.
   
   Indeed, I am not aware of any source which provides (a) an overview, and (b) relevant peer reviewed sources... except my site. But the information is inadmissible because of the approach to my site.

While I appreciate the need to screen out "popular" web sites whose information may be poorly synthesized by the contributor(s), I do feel that in this case, my own site provides valuable, checkable, peer-reviewed information.