Einstein,
Even I at times fall into my own state of "this is my last post" and post just one more. So without any further delay...
I won’t make this a major paper because, frankly, it isn’t a subject worthy of much work, time or effort. But for the sake of some sanity in an otherwise insane subject I will make a minimum effort:
The entire theory we’re discussing here is Ralph Juergen’s “Electric Sun Hypothesisâ€. In short this civil engineer proposed that the sun can’t possibly run on nuclear fussion. Instead it runs on electric processes in an Electric Universe where stars output a steady stream of electrons (no protons to speak of) and the star itself becomes, basically, a hugely positively charged ball of protonium. It’s a hypothesis that he proposed back in the 1960’s without any underlying math or rigorous science.
That’s the underlying premise of the entire theory. Unfortunately for the theory, since the 1960’s we have actually launched a couple of satellites to study the solar wind, background radiations and the sun up close and personal. OK – so it’s a lot more than a couple of satellites. The solar wind is a collection of electrons and protons in almost equal numbers. The electrical charge of the sun, though unevenly distributed, is shown to be almost electroneutral. The underlying premise falls flat on its face based on the collected evidence. There’s really no reason to go any farther with the argument. If the legs are cut from under the hypothesis the rest is just a pile of clutter. But I will mention just one more problem with Juergens
et al:
The Missing Neutrinos
Though the Ralph Juergens cult state that there are a host of problems with the nuclear fussion stellar model the one that they most frequently refer to is the “Missing Neutrino Problemâ€. In short they state that the standard model must be wrong because we can’t detect the predicted electron neutrinos that should be present in P-P fusion reactions. For them it’s a huge “Ah-ha – gotcha!†Unfortunately they are typical cultists. They don’t do any research on their own, simply relying on a few websites that regurgitate this Ah-ha. Along the same lines they point to, after neutrinos were being detected, that they were in insufficient numbers.
The information that they rely on was originated by Juergens in or about 1968. In 1968 it was true. We couldn’t detect sufficient numbers of electron neutrinos. In fact, we could barely detect neutrinos at all regardless of whether they were electron, tau or any other flavor of neutrino. Today, however, we can easily detect electron neutrinos. And we detect them in precisely the right numbers in accordance with the expected values for solar fussion.
See for instance:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0405/0405172v6.pdf “Status of global fits to neutrino oscillationsâ€, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M. A. Tortola, J. W. F. Valle, 18-MAY-2004, Revised 28-SEP-2007. There are dozens of papers on HEP that clearly support the evidence,
with experimental proof as well as theoritcal analysis, that there are no “missing neutrinos†in P-P solar fission reactions.
Now, I don't expect that this post will have any effect on Rembrandt. He won't do any research on the HEP pages at ArXiv and he won't cite any rigorous research. He'll refer to Scott and Juergens and remain a cultist.
So I'll just post a Baez Crackpot Index reminder:
<ul type="square"> [*]1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false [*]2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. [*]5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. [*]10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". [*]20 points for talking about how great the theory is, but never actually explaining it. [*]20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy". [*]40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts. [*]40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. [*]40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.) [*]50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. [/list]
