Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

a reply to: mbkennel

The equations have to do with reality, but are not reality.

A book may contain a fictional story which describes life in a way we can understand, but that doesn't mean the story is life.

Similarly, an equation may help to map out the probability of a scenario unfolding under certain criteria, but that doesn't mean the probability is the reality of the scenario.

One is an abstracted model, the other is objects in motion.

A description is not the thing being described.

Here we go, this guy's a better crackhead than I. Knew something like this was said long before:

I Like this quote I dislike this quote
“The description is not the described; I can describe the mountain, but the description is not the mountain, and if you are caught up in the description, as most people are, then you will never see the mounain”--Krishnamurti

Link

originally posted by: mbkennel


In your opinion: what would an equation that does have something to do with physical reality be like? How would it be different from physics?

Im not saying as of now we can predict with equations, exact outcomes of events, but my entire argument is, where as you see that as evidence that reality is not definite, determined, or self predicated, I merely see it as evidence that man cannot define, determine, or predicate the variables of reality.

In basketball, a foul shooter with a 50% average steps up to the foul line for 2 shots. Will he make one and miss one? Are there physical variables (hidden) at play that exist beyond our statistical analysis of the past of his experience? Every time he shoots, there are only two outcomes, he will either miss or make it. There is no way to physically predict before a shooter shoots with certainty if they will make or miss a shot. Some free throw shooters are 90% or higher in accuracy/consistency! This means prior to them shooting I can turn to you and say "he will make this, I am certain!" and if he makes it, my prediction would have been correct. I would have used his high average as a tool of probability to form a prediction. But this says nothing about why he makes or misses. Would it be proper to say that when a 50% free thrower shoots, the pico second the ball leaves his fingers, or maybe its when he bends down to begin coming up towards the throw, or as the ball is just leaving his fingers, in that moment, the ball is in a state of make/miss. Do you believe that? That if we paused out TV right as the ball is leaving his fingers, and we sat there, we would have no information with which we can predict what will happen? (besides his stats). Is it not true that, what will end up happen, from the moment it leaves his fingers, and even prior, is determined entirely on physical phenomenon? His muscles, the angles of his arm in relation to the hoop, how low he bends, his eyes, how tired he is, how well he slept the night before, his fingers grips on the ball, how they are aligned with the lines of the ball, the air pressure, the flexibility of the rim, the arc of the shot, the power, the aiming left and right and up and down. When we pause the TV and then press play, if we could view reality pico second to pico second, this event unfold, would you deny that the result, is determined by the totality of physical phenomena's interacting with one another in 'real time' and according to the qualities of physicality's and the laws which abound?

It is not the statistics which determine what the outcome will be, it is the reality of physicality's existing physically, with qualities, which interact.

There is no experimental evidence there is anything other than quantum mechanics which you don't like because it's "mathematical abstraction", and experimental evidence that rules out a whole lot of "quantum mechanics plus something else" theory.

Aspect experiments confirming Bell inequalities among others.

Its not that I dont like quantum mechanics, I dont care about it, its great, a hammer is great, it can be used to build a house or beat a head in and make someone dumb, I have a problem with someone calling this tool a description of physical reality. As I more then sufficiently explained in this thread, and above, it is not.

originally posted by: mbkennel
In your opinion: what would an equation that does have something to do with physical reality be like? How would it be different from physics?

The famous example in history that comes to mind of this would be the epicycle model of planetary movements in the geocentric model, to explain the observed retrograde motion.

But that wasn't quite accurate, so they added epicycles on epicycles and if they had made some more changes to the epicycles model I think it could make decent predictions. This is what it looked like before more epicycles on epicycles were added to improve the accuracy:

hep.physics.indiana.edu...


I've always thought this model is something we should keep in the back of our minds when we make models to explain observations that can do so even if they don't represent reality.

Having said that, I'm not sure how any classical model can explain QM observations like ImaFungi apparently wants, even if we throw out the QM model and say it's wrong, if we try to compare QM to the epicycles model.

If we think hard enough, we can come up with alternatives to epicycles to explain observations, but so far there is no scientific consensus on the underlying reality of what quantum mechanics represents, so as dragonridr said he doesn't know of scientists who think we are sure about this and that's also my take, which means that the people ImaFungi thought he was arguing with don't really disagree with him too much about this point, as far as I can tell

a reply to: ImaFungi

See the problem is this QM has gone beyond just modeling it to making predictions of interactions we test it its right, So ill say at the very least this is the only theory we have thats capable of doing this standard physics has no way to make or even explain what we see in experiments. Now you guys could continue this argument forever its kind of pointless. Science helps us explain the world around us, Science is the study of the physical and natural world using systematic observation and experiment. Now about the hidden variables heres the catch QM sets things in limits set by probability. This means its making predictions if there were hidden variables QM wouldn't disappear all it would do is be even more accurate. But lets think if there were hidden variables by the way mathematically this is impossible because we can use math to check our work. But lets suppose it is there what would it be well theirs only one answer remaining a stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics due to persistent vacuum fluctuations. The main idea is that vacuum (or spacetime) fluctuations are the reason for quantum mechanics and not a result of it how it is usually considered.In other words we believe QM causes vacuum fluctuations but if they dont and then they would be the cause of QM. Problem becomes the vacuum fluctuations themselves would have to always be the same interact the same and we would have to figure out why they are there.

Now as far as hidden variables its been tested retested and tested some more. Bells inequalities show us there isnt hidden variables. Forexample Alain Aspect and Paul Kwiat have performed experiments and they found violations of these inequalities up to 242 standard deviations the odds of being wrong here are about the same as you throwing a baseball and hitting the great wall of china while your standing in fenway park. By the way im not sure you realize what your arguing either your arguing reality is non local because it means things can and do move faster than light. See that inequalities part of the test is light itself.

Now if you want to learn be happy to go over some experiments if you choose to remain in 19th century physics so be it but youll continue to be lost when it comes to the real world because its just incapable of explaining wha we observe.

How does the present discussion relate to the sun and whether or not it is electric?

This discussion has gone from that subject, right out to the meaning of the universe, quantum physics, particle physics, and probably the price of cheese in paris and back... Pretty epic thread where minds didn't change and egos got bigger both sides.

its been a good run, but it is probably best to cap this one

a reply to: ErosA433

I would suggest a new thread with a thoughtful OP to continue the discussion if that is desired, with a link to it on this thread.

a reply to: Mary Rose
The topic of the thread is "Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun".
There has never been anything posted in this thread that confirms electric sun, not even in the opening post, so even the opening post is off-topic.

originally posted by: dragonridr

Now as far as hidden variables its been tested retested and tested some more. Bells inequalities show us there isnt hidden variables. Forexample Alain Aspect and Paul Kwiat have performed experiments and they found violations of these inequalities up to 242 standard deviations the odds of being wrong here are about the same as you throwing a baseball and hitting the great wall of china while your standing in fenway park. By the way im not sure you realize what your arguing either your arguing reality is non local because it means things can and do move faster than light. See that inequalities part of the test is light itself.

How has hidden variables been tested? The uncertainty principle makes it impossible to test hidden variables, thats the whole idea dimwit, we cant measure the variables because whenever we do, duh, we end the variables existence, by measuring them, so while they are unmeasured, they are hidden. How has hidden variables been tested for?

Bells inequality theorem is a simple 3 step philosophical argument that fails, because it supposes a person who believes in local realism must believe in QM, which is the 1st stipulation, this is not true because its the probabilities in QM that a person who believes in local realism would be forced not to believe fully in the reality of QM, but still believe that it can be used to make statistical predictions.

People like you, who believe what you are saying, are completely confused and misunderstanding the history of physics, the interpretations, and the idea of truth. You use circular logic and faulty arguments, falsities self referencing falsities to prove my truth false, its just a terrible mish mash of ignorances and bits of knowledge swarmed and bashed with ignorance to make a pretty ugly picture into your world view, which of course, you believe to be truth. Your religion isnt even a cleverly thought out one.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

That's just your opinion.

The plasma ribbon would be on-topic, yes.

We don't need to be discussing anything under the sun to do with physics, which is what this thread has turned in to.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: Arbitrageur

That's just your opinion.

The plasma ribbon would be on-topic, yes.

We don't need to be discussing anything under the sun to do with physics, which is what this thread has turned in to.

All physics are related, its not like you can just pick apart physics and examine it in a vacuum... We need to agree upon base terms of the underlying fundamental nature before we can work up to discussing anything like what a 'plasma ribbon' might be and mean and do and why.

a reply to: ImaFungi
As long as you know some variables you can use logic to test other possible variables. If you end up with a statement thats impossible that is an inequality. And also your confused do you know arguing for local reality means? I have a feeling your clueless on the implications tell you what lets look at bells inequalities and we can try to see if there could be a missing variable up for it?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi
As long as you know some variables you can use logic to test other possible variables.

Ok, try me. Give me an argument/statements that proves the existence of hidden variables being the cause of experiments results, impossible.

And also your confused do you know arguing for local reality means? I have a feeling your clueless on the implications tell you what lets look at bells inequalities and we can try to see if there could be a missing variable up for it?

Yes. Local realism. As in, the opposite of non local realism. As in, the opposite of non locality.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
We need to agree upon base terms of the underlying fundamental nature before we can work up to discussing anything like what a 'plasma ribbon' might be and mean and do and why.

Baloney.

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: ImaFungi
We need to agree upon base terms of the underlying fundamental nature before we can work up to discussing anything like what a 'plasma ribbon' might be and mean and do and why.

Baloney.

Ok sorry Mary

Electric Sun is confirmed.

Can we continue our conversation?

a reply to: ImaFungi

No.

Start a new thread.

a reply to: ImaFungi
a reply to: Mary Rose

I made a new thread. You can continue the discussion here:

Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks, Arbitrageur!

I owe you one.

some more evidence the Sun is not a hydrogen bomb

a reply to: KrzYma

From the Description:

Published on Jul 12, 2014

A new scientific study has further deepened one of the longstanding mysteries of solar physics. For decades scientists have struggled to explain why the solar wind accelerates as it moves away from the Sun in defiance of gravity. In more recent years, theorists have suggested that so-called transverse magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) waves could explain both the problems of solar wind acceleration and anomalous coronal heating. However, for the first time researchers using the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) have directly measured the transverse wave motions in solar-polar plumes. They have found that the energies of the so-called magnetic waves fall four to ten times below the minimum requirement to explain the acceleration of the solar wind. Dr. Michael Clarage weighs in on this discussion.

Michael Clarage's talk on the electric sun at EU2014 conference: www.youtube.com...

PDF of the paper discussed in this video: arxiv.org...

www.youtube.com...

A screenshot:



From the PDF:



"Alfvénic" as in Hannes Alfvén.

The video points out the irony in that.

Alfvén made a mistake in trying to simplify by taking the electric field out of plasma, recognized it, stated it publicly, and had said stop using those MHD equations of mine.